EVALUATION REPORT
Evaluation Report for the Military-style
Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
September 2013
Prepared by
Knowledge & Insights Group
Prepared for
Youth Justice Policy,
Social Policy and Knowledge Group
Knowledge & Insights Group
AUTHORS
Diane Anderson and Philip Spier, Ministry of Social Development
Dr David Dundon-Smith, Director, Next Step Research
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the other members of the evaluation team who
undertook fieldwork or analysis relating to the project:
Melanie Martin, Ashley Shearar, Fleur McLaren, Ryan Wilkinson and
Sarah Palmer.
We also thank the CYF and NZDF staff, community providers and
MAC graduates who gave us their time to be interviewed.
DISCLAIMER
The Ministry of Social Development has made every effort to ensure
the information in this report is reliable, but does not guarantee its
accuracy and does not accept liability for any errors.
SUGGESTED CITATION
Ministry of Social Development (2013). Evaluation Report for the
Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme. Ministry of Social
Development: Wellington, New Zealand.
PUBLISHED
ISBN 978-0-478-33579-8 (online)
Contents
Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Description of the MAC programme ................................................................................................................... 3
What impact is the MAC programme having on reoffending? ............................................................................ 3
What does the typical MAC participant look like? .............................................................................................. 4
What is working well? ......................................................................................................................................... 4
What could be improved upon? .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the report .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Evaluation scope and methodology .................................................................................................................... 8
Limitations and caveats ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Report structure ................................................................................................................................................10
2.
The MAC programme .............................................................................................................................11
Background to the development of the MAC programme ................................................................................12
Overview of the MAC programme ....................................................................................................................12
Implementation of the MAC programme to date ..............................................................................................15
3.
MAC participants, risk factors and offending outcomes ....................................................................16
Profile of MAC participants ...............................................................................................................................16
MAC reoffending trends (to date) .....................................................................................................................21
4.
Selection and referral .............................................................................................................................24
What’s working? ...............................................................................................................................................25
Areas for improvement .....................................................................................................................................28
5.
MAC residential phase ...........................................................................................................................30
Key strengths of the MAC residential phase ....................................................................................................31
Operational Issues ............................................................................................................................................37
6.
Transition back into the community .....................................................................................................41
An overview of the intended transition back to the community ........................................................................42
Can a successful transition be achieved? ........................................................................................................43
7.
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................56
Early reductions in reoffending achieved but can they be sustained? .............................................................56
The typical MAC participant presents with an array of risk factors ..................................................................56
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
1
Aspects of the MAC programme are working well ...........................................................................................57
Improvements to parts of the MAC programme ...............................................................................................57
References ......................................................................................................................................................62
Annex 1: Methodology ...................................................................................................................................64
Annex 2: What does the MAC programme look like? .................................................................................68
The underlying rationale for the MAC programme ...........................................................................................68
Components of the MAC programme ...............................................................................................................69
Annex 3: CYF assessments for youth ..........................................................................................................76
Annex 4: Youth reoffending ..........................................................................................................................77
Annex 5: MAC reoffending update ................................................................................................................79
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
2
Executive summary
Introduction
This report outlines the findings from an evaluation of the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC)
programme. The MAC programme, introduced in October 2010 as part of the Government’s Fresh
Start reforms, targets 40 of the most serious and persistent youth offenders in New Zealand each
year. MACs are delivered in partnership by Child, Youth and Family (CYF) and the New Zealand
Defence Force (NZDF).
The evaluation, carried out between February and June 2013, identifies parts of the MAC programme
that are working well or not so well and examines early evidence regarding the overall effectiveness of
the MAC programme. The evaluation uses several methods of data collection, including qualitative
interviews with residential and community-based staff and a small number of young people; an
analysis of CYF administrative data; in-depth case studies of four young people; and a reoffending
outcomes analysis for MAC participants taking place six months and 12 months after completion of
their Supervision with Residence (SwR) orders.
Description of the MAC programme
The MAC programme was designed to provide intensive wraparound support to the 40 most serious
and persistent young male offenders each year to assist them to make pro-social choices (eg not
reoffending) and ultimately make a successful transition to adulthood.
The programme includes:

a nine-week MAC residential programme based in Christchurch. This utilises NZDF
adventure-based learning facilities, combining military-type activities as part of a broader
residential intervention programme, which includes therapeutic and educational interventions.

transition back into the community, on a Supervision order. When released from residence,
each young person must serve a Supervision order of between six and 12 months duration with
ongoing support by a social-service provider. The development of a plan to return the young
person to the community, and the successful implementation of that plan, is crucial to the overall
effectiveness of the MAC programme.
What impact is the MAC programme having on reoffending?
Between October 2010 and July 2013, nine MAC residential programmes were run with a total of 80
young people starting the programme and 70 of these completing it. At the time of the evaluation, 35
of these 70 young people had been back in the community for at least 12 months to allow their
reoffending patterns to be meaningfully examined.
Reoffending data available to June 2013 suggest that the MAC programme is achieving some
promising results. Seventeen per cent (six) of 35 MAC graduates did not reoffend within 12 months of
being released from residence, and 83 and 74 per cent, respectively, reduced the frequency and/or
seriousness of their offending.
However, the small numbers who have completed the programme so far means that it’s too early to
say whether these results are any different from what might have been achieved by a standard SwR
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
3
order. The impact of the MAC programme on recidivism results will be formally tested through a robust
statistical analysis by the end of 2014.
What does the typical MAC participant look like?
The typical MAC participant is a 16-year-old Māori male from the North Island who presents with an
array of risk factors. This participant commonly lacks a positive male role model in his life, is known to
the care and protection arm of CYF, has disengaged from school at an early age, misuses alcohol
and/or drugs, and associates with antisocial peers. Most such participants have one or more of the
following: mental health concerns, anger management issues, learning difficulties, cognitive problems,
and/or issues from past grief or trauma. In terms of their offending, typically they first came to the
attention of the NZ Police for offending at around age 12, have an average of around 30 prior
offences, and were sent on the MAC for offences such as aggravated robbery, burglary or serious
assault.
What is working well?
The nine-week residential programme appears to be working well
The evaluation found that the MAC residential programme appears to be working well and that it
improves the attitudes and motivation of the participants to address their offending behaviour.
Nevertheless, the residential staff were aware that by itself the residential programme could not
overcome all of the risk factors influencing the young people’s offending behaviour that had built up
over the first 15 or 16 years of their lives, and that therefore there was no guarantee that the young
people would not go on to reoffend.
The involvement of the NZDF in the MAC programme was critical to its success. The uniform was
respected by the young people. Using teamwork and a mix of structured and routine activities, the
NZDF staff helped break down barriers and promote the principles of equity, respect for authority, and
self-discipline in the young people.
Many MAC participants were able to achieve some qualifications while on the residential programme.
For example, within the MAC intakes Three to Eight, over half of the young people were able to
achieve NCEA Level 1 credits, including a small number who achieved some Level 2 credits. In
addition, all of the participants in MACs Three to Eight passed the Site Safe course, and almost all
achieved their OSH Forklift certification. Eleven young people also sat their learner licence tests.
Some young people make a successful transition to the community
Around one in five young people graduating from the MAC programme had a clearly successful
transition back into the community. They had not reoffended in over 12 months or had committed only
a single offence of a minor nature. These young people were often living in a different location from
before the MAC programme, with a supportive member of their wider family, and also had another
adult in their lives for support, such as a mentor.
What could be improved upon?
The critical areas on which to focus attention are the selection and referral process and the community
phase of the MAC programme. Some improvements could also be made to the residential phase.
The right people were not always being selected for the MAC programme
A decision to refer someone to the MAC programme is usually made at the Family Group Conference
(FGC). The evaluation shows that social workers, who provide advice at the FGC about a young
person’s suitability for the MAC programme, varied in their adherence to the selection criteria. MAC
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
4
participants could all be described as serious or persistent offenders (but not necessarily both) and
many were on the cusp of transferral to the adult justice system.
The lack of alternatives to the MAC programme was a factor in some referrals. Some Youth Justice
(YJ) social workers recognised the potential benefits of the therapeutic aspects of the MAC
programme and felt that if their young person had to go to residence it was preferable to go on the
MAC programme, even if they did not meet all the criteria.
Moreover, the number of potential candidates for the MAC programme (ie young people with SwR
orders) is falling. CYF operational data shows SwR orders have fallen over 20 per cent in two years
which, in part, reflects a significant drop in recent years in the number of 14- to 16-year-olds
apprehended by the NZ Police – down by 18 per cent between 2009/10 and 2011/12. This could have
implications for the number and types of young people who are available to participate in future MAC
programmes.
How can the selection and referral process be improved?
Improving the selection and referral process is essential if the benefits of the programme are to be
fully realised and its limited resources used most wisely. The evaluation identified a number of issues
that would need to be addressed to strengthen the selection and referral process for the MAC
programme. These include the following.

Promoting increased awareness of the MAC programme, especially the selection criteria, amongst
social workers is particularly important given their role in the selection process.

Screening and assessment of young peoples’ needs and risks is required in all cases to ensure
that the young people receive the help they need to address their offending behaviour. The
evaluation has shown that 31 per cent of MAC participants did not have a completed TRAX
assessment1 – the main Youth Justice risk and assessment tool at the time of the evaluation.

Improving assessment and support around mental health issues is needed, as some participants
who were found to have moderate to severe mental health issues that were not under control were
very disruptive to the delivery of the programme (with at least two young people having being
removed from past MAC programmes for this reason).2

Better alignment of sentences with the quarterly MAC commencement dates is needed so that a
greater number of potential candidates can take part in the programme.

Some social workers expressed concern about the resourcing associated with sending a young
person on the MAC programme. For example, the high costs of sending social workers, family
members and mentors to Christchurch from provincial North Island centres.
The nine-week residential programme has some areas for improvement
The evaluation identified some operational issues that potentially hinder the impact of the MAC
residential programme.

Most importantly, determining the most suitable approach to the delivery of the
criminogenic programme (eg some residential staff raised issues around the programme now
being shorter, and being delivered by residential staff). Since the evaluation was undertaken, CYF
1
TRAX is a social work assessment tool developed to aid CYF practitioners in their work with children and young people aged 12 years
and above. Primarily, it supports them to identify, analyse and understand the strengths, risks and needs of the higher-risk youth they are
working with.
2
Since the evaluation was undertaken, CYF national office report an increased focus during the health assessments at the start of the
MAC programme on identifying young people with such issues.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
5
national office report that to encourage young people to address the causes of their offending
behaviour, motivational interviewing will be introduced to supplement the criminogenic programme.
However, there remains an issue around how a more robust criminogenic programme can be
delivered to this particular group of persistent/serious offenders. It may be that the nine-week
residential phase is too short for an effective programme to be delivered, and a community-based
programme may also be required once the young people leave residence.
Other possible improvements include:

Improving the flow of information between Te Puna Wai o Tuhinapo (TPW) Youth Justice
Residence and social workers, family and mentors in the community. Residential staff are
currently not provided with regular reports on the outcomes of the young people graduating from
the programme. Information about what has gone well and not so well for young people back in the
community could be useful information to those who deliver the residential programme. Moreover,
ensuring that social workers, family and mentors understand what has happened to the young
person during the residential phase will assist with their reintegration into the community.

Better integration of the residential programme components, and clearer definition of the
overall goals and intended outcomes. This includes ensuring residential staff have a better
understanding of all the residential programme components, what each of them are trying to
achieve, and how they should fit together to achieve the overall objectives of the programme.

Working to overcome some of the drawbacks of delivering the MAC residential phase in
only one location, eg engagement with family/whānau not located in Christchurch. This has
subsequent implications for transition back into their home community.
Significant improvements are required for the community phase
When the MAC programme was developed, it was recognised that the often complex transition from
the residential environment to the community was critical and needed to be appropriately managed
and monitored. Any gains made from the residential environment would need to be identified, retained
and built on during the transition. Unfortunately, in contrast to the consistency of delivery and
adherence to standards sought during the nine-week residential programme, there are a number of
significant gaps or limitations in the support currently provided to the young people after they leave
TPW.
Suggestions for improvements include the following:

Reviewing whether young people should serve the remainder of their SwR order in another
residential unit. All staff and some of the young people interviewed for the evaluation reported
that doing so could erode some of the positive gains from the MAC residential programme. CYF
are now working closely with YJ social workers to tailor the length of SwR orders so to allow young
people to leave the residence as soon as possible after graduation. We note that the length of
SwR orders is set by judges in the Youth Court, taking other factors into consideration such as the
length of order being proportional to the seriousness of the offending.

Providing greater clarity on how to address risk factors that influence offending behaviour.
When the young people return to the community they face many of the pre-existing environmental
and other risk factors that influence offending behaviour. Many of the young people struggled with
them eg negative home and peer influences, ongoing alcohol and other drug (AOD) misuse,
mental health issues, and anger management problems. While these issues are not specific to
MAC participants, they influence the overall effectiveness of the programme. These issues also
affect a young person’s ability to receive education, training or employment. The evaluation raises
a number of fundamental questions about the design of the MAC programme:
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
6



-
To what extent does the MAC programme address all of the main risk factors associated
with offending behaviour?
-
If not being fully addressed, are the factors that are being addressed sufficient to help the
young people change their offending behaviour and what else needs to happen? For
example, during the community phase, is sending the young person on an additional
programme to manage their transition back into the community the only solution, or is there
a need to also help strengthen the family’s and community’s resilience so that they can
support the young person?
Establishing and maintaining stronger links to education, training or employment for MAC
participants. The design of the MAC intervention stipulated that these links are expected to be
more robust than previously, as these links are key factors in the young person’s successful
transition to independence. However, these links were difficult to establish and maintain for a
number of reasons, including:
-
MAC graduates often had very low levels of educational achievement, which meant they
did not have the required skills and knowledge to participate in many existing education or
training courses. Some interviewees suggested there was a need for bridging courses.
-
The age or location of the young person made gaining a place on any course or finding
work challenging. For example, those living in smaller towns or in more remote locations
had fewer options.
-
The young people often did not have the life skills to cope with what was required to
maintain engagement in education, training or employment; they needed more support.
Undertaking more work to ensure that the young people receive more intensive
supervision. The YJ social workers, who oversee the transition back into the community, reported
that their supervision of the MAC participants back in the community was no different to
supervision of other young people leaving residence. This raises questions such as:
-
Should there be a more intensive plan than the norm for the Supervision order and/or more
intensive support from the social worker?
-
If there is more intensive support required, what should that support look like and what is
the social worker’s role in providing this?
Ensuring the young people receive the level of support they need from various other
professional sources in the community phase. For example:
-
Additional counselling or other services may be required to address ongoing needs or risk
factors.
-
Time needs to be used constructively where the supports required for the young people
cannot be provided in a timely manner (eg the date of their release from residence may not
coincide closely with course commencement dates, or there may be long waiting times for
community-based programmes such as AOD counselling).
-
The level and extent of the role performed by mentors is variable and sometimes
insufficient to meet the needs of the young person.
-
It was reported that there can be significant costs for CYF sites associated with meeting the
requirements of the Supervision order plans (eg sending social workers, mentors and
family to Christchurch – particularly from provincial North Island locations; and provision of
intensive mentoring).
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
7
1. Introduction
Purpose of the report
This report outlines the findings of an evaluation of the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) programme,
which was carried out between February and June 2013. The evaluation identifies parts of the MAC
programme that are working well and not so well. It also examines early evidence regarding the
overall effectiveness of the MAC programme. The MAC programme seeks to reduce reoffending for a
small group of serious and/or persistent young offenders, by addressing the underlying causes of
offending and helping young offenders to develop pro-social attitudes and behaviours.
For the purposes of this report, the MAC programme includes the selection and referral process, the
nine-week MAC residential phase, the remainder of the Supervision with Residence (SwR) order, and
the transition back into the community, on a Supervision order.
Evaluation scope and methodology
The evaluation looks at whether the MAC programme has been implemented as intended and seeks
to identify what is working well and not so well. The scope for this evaluation includes the questions:

What is the selection process for young people onto the MAC programme?

Is the MAC programme being targeted correctly?

Is the MAC programme being delivered consistently?

Do the MAC programme components work well?

What are the implications (if any) of running the MAC programme in Christchurch only?

Are the young people engaging positively with the MAC programme?

Is there an impact on the young people when they have to stay in the residence after graduating
from the MAC programme?

Is the transition and integration back into the community working well?
The design of the MAC programme is also examined, drawing on available ‘what works’ international
evidence.
The evaluation uses several methods of data collection, including:

residential phase interviews – 23 face-to-face interviews carried out in March 2013, mainly with
key stakeholders involved in the delivery of the MAC programme and a small number of MAC
participants

transition phase interviews – 20 face-to-face interviews carried out in May 2013, structured around
eight MAC participants and those professionals working with those young people
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
8

CYRAS3 analysis – undertaken for 37 participants from MACs Four to Eight, and including key
documents, case notes, residential placement records, and summaries from assessment and
screening tools

in-depth case studies – carried out for four previous MAC participants, and combining information
from the transition stage interviews and the CYRAS analysis

reoffending outcomes analysis – using NZ Police offence occurrence data to calculate reoffending
rates for MAC participants six months and 12 months after completion of their SwR order.
Information is presented in the report on reoffending by MAC participants, including changes in the
frequency and seriousness of offending. However, it is too early to assess whether the impact of the
MAC programme on reoffending is any different from what might have been achieved by a standard
SwR order, and whether any change in offending behaviour will be sustained in the longer term. When
the analysis was undertaken in June 2013 only 35 young people had completed the MAC programme
with a minimum 12-month post-release period. Because of the small numbers, caution is needed
when interpreting these findings.
In order to protect the identity of the young people involved in the case studies, fictitious names have
been used. Case study information is presented in text boxes throughout the report to highlight
particular points or issues.
More information on the evaluation methodology is set out in Annex 1.
Limitations and caveats
The evaluation, carried out between February and June 2013, examined how the MAC programme
had been implemented and identified what was working or not working at that time. This process could
have been assisted by a clearer understanding of how the component parts of the programme,
individually and as a whole, were intended to help achieve the outcomes being sought.
The MAC programme is a targeted intervention for a small number of young people (ie serious or
persistent youth offenders who are close to entering the adult justice system). The outcomes for
discrete cohorts, or groups, of MAC participants can therefore vary significantly, especially if the
selection criteria are not strictly adhered to.
The findings presented in this report are based on interviews with a broad range of professionals,
most of whom were involved in the design and/or delivery of the MAC programme and a small number
of MAC participants. Although MAC residential and community staff were asked to compare, where
appropriate, the programme to other interventions for young offenders, the evaluation did not set out
to speak to other professionals, young people or stakeholders involved in other youth justice
interventions. No direct comparisons can therefore be drawn from the findings in this report.
3
CYRAS is the Child, Youth, Residences and Adoption System database and case management recording system, managed by MSD.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
9
Report structure
The structure for the rest of the report is outlined below.

Chapter 2 outlines the underlying rationale for the MAC programme, before discussing its design
and implementation to date.

Chapter 3 looks at the profile of young people participating in the MAC programme, before
discussing the risk factors often associated with offending behaviour and how the MAC
programme seeks to address them. Finally, reoffending outcomes are examined for those MAC
graduates who have left and been outside residence for 12 months or more.

Chapter 4 examines the selection and referral process for the MAC programme, identifying a
number of areas for improvement.

Chapter 5 looks at the nine-week residential phase of the MAC programme, which is generally
regarded as working well and helping the young people to change their attitudes and motivation to
address their offending behaviour. A couple of specific issues about how certain aspects of the
residential programme are operating are also discussed.

Chapter 6 turns attention to the transition and community phase of the MAC programme,
highlighting the complexities encountered by the young people as they leave the residence and
return to their home community or a new location. This chapter also discusses a number of issues
or gaps in this phase which, unlike the residential phase, are seen as hindering the overall
effectiveness of the MAC programme.

Chapter 7 reviews the preceding evidence presented in the report and draws a number of
conclusions.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
10
2. The MAC programme
SUMMARY

The MAC programme provides the youth justice sector with a ‘last chance’ tool to deal
with serious and persistent youth offenders, and is delivered in partnership by Child,
Youth and Family (CYF) and the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF).

The MAC programme was designed to provide intensive wraparound support to the 40
most serious and persistent young male offenders each year to assist them to make prosocial choices (eg not reoffending) and ultimately make a successful transition back into
their community as competent and positive participants.

It is widely accepted in the literature that traditional ‘boot camps’ do not work and in
some instances can exacerbate offending behaviour. The MAC programme was
designed to incorporate a comprehensive range of rehabilitative services and
programmes. The programme includes:
-
a nine-week MAC residential programme based in Christchurch. This utilises
NZDF adventure-based learning facilities combining military-type activities as part
of a broader residential intervention programme that includes therapeutic and
educational interventions. Core components include the role of the NZDF,
criminogenic group therapy, one-to-one alcohol and other drug (AOD) counselling,
schooling and vocational training, healthcare, and the cultural/wānanga
programme.
-
transition back into the community, on a Supervision order. When released
from residence, each young person must serve a Supervision order which is
between six and 12 months’ duration with ongoing support by a social service
provider. The length and type of supervision activities are determined on a caseby-case basis, and are intended to consolidate and strengthen the impact of the
residential phase of the MAC programme by addressing any continuing risks and
needs. The development of a plan to return the young person to the community,
and the successful implementation of that plan, are crucial to the overall
effectiveness of the MAC programme.
This chapter outlines the underlying rationale for the MAC programme, before discussing its design
and implementation to date. The core component parts of the nine-week residential programme are
discussed in detail in Annex 2. The description represents our understanding of the MAC programme
at the time the evaluation was undertaken.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
11
Background to the development of the MAC programme
The MAC programme is delivered in partnership by CYF and NZDF. It was introduced as part of the
Government’s Fresh Start reforms in October 20104 to reduce reoffending and assist the young
person to make pro-social choices while living independently in the community. Ultimately the intention
is that the young person makes a successful transition to adulthood. Government was concerned that
the existing range of tools was not sufficient5 to deal effectively with the most serious and persistent
young offenders. The Fresh Start reforms strengthened and extended the range of tools for dealing
with these young offenders, and included:

the introduction of the MAC programme for up to 40 of the most serious or persistent high-risk
young male offenders each year who are subject to a SwR order. The MAC programme provides
the Youth Court with one final opportunity to deal with this group of young offenders on the cusp of
transferral to the adult justice system.

extending the maximum length of SwR and Supervision with Activity (SwA) orders from three
months to six months

extending the maximum length of Supervision orders that directly follow SwR and SwA orders6 to a
maximum 12 months and six months respectively.
The underlying rationale for the MAC programme
In designing the MAC programme, policy staff drew on available international literature in terms of
‘what works’ with serious and persistent young offenders and, specifically, military-style activity camps
(Australian Institute of Criminology, 2002). It is widely accepted in the literature that traditional ‘boot
camps’ do not work (ie are not effective interventions for reducing recidivism among adults and young
people) and in some instances can exacerbate offending behaviour (AGCP, 2013).7 The broad design
of the MAC programme in New Zealand sought to limit the extent of the military component, as
compared with similar programmes overseas, and increase the use of educational programmes and
programmes with a youth focus.
For interventions such as the MAC programme to work, they need to address the underlying causes of
offending. The MAC programme was designed to address the multiple risk factors that can influence
the offending behaviour of young people. The intention was for the MAC programme to focus equally
on both the residential and community parts of the programme, with a managed transition between the
two.
Overview of the MAC programme
The MAC programme was designed to provide intensive wraparound support during a residential
phase and throughout the transition back into the community (see Figure 1). While no specific targets
have been set, the MAC programme seeks reductions in both the seriousness and frequency of
reoffending as well as providing support and increased opportunities for pro-social development and
community engagement.
4
The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Court Jurisdiction and orders) Amendment Act 2010 came into effect on 1
October 2010. The objectives were to improve community safety and assist in addressing the underlying causes of offending by children
and young people. Collectively, the amendments to legislation and the programmes that are enabled by, or support the legislative
changes, are known as Fresh Start for Young Offenders (Fresh Start) reforms.
5
Ministry of Social Development (2012a).
6
For further detail on SwR and SwA orders refer to Annex 2.
7
For more detail, see ‘What works in reducing young people’s involvement in crime? Review of current literature on youth crime
prevention’, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2003, Canberra.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
12
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
SWR order made
(including MAC)
Young person reappears in the Youth
Court and due to the
frequency and/or
severity of offending, a
SwR order is made,
including participation on
the MAC.
FGC Held
FGC held and plan agreed on.
(Note: whether there is agreement
or not on the FGC plan, the young
person will re-appear in the Youth
Court)
Court directed FGC
CYF receive a Youth Court
directed FGC referral.
Young person
offends
Young person is
apprehended for
offending and appears
in the Youth Court.
Pre-residence
The Wilderness Camp runs for one week
and aims to help young people to:
- build therapeutic relationships
- develop trust and the sense of
achievement
- learn to co-operate with others
- learn to tolerate adversity
- learn responsibility and accountability
- reinforce behaviour management
- develop work skills.
Wilderness Camp
These programmes aim to address the young person’s needs
and focus on key areas that include:
- living skills
- education
- culture
- therapeutic (with a focus on rehabilitation, family
intervention, and vocational skills)
- criminogenic group therapy
- alcohol and other drug counselling
- transition back into the community
- teamwork
- improved fitness and wellbeing.
The MAC residential component runs for eight weeks and
provides young people with a structured routine and an
opportunity to learn through planned programmes.
MAC Residential Component
Every young person on the MAC is expected to complete a Wilderness
Camp, the MAC residential component, and their SWR order.
Duration of MAC: nine weeks
Military-style Activity Camp (MAC)
Note: young people are entitled to Early Release from a SWR order if they can satisfy the Youth Court that their
behaviour and compliance has been satisfactory while on MAC and in residence. When a young person is granted Early
Release they will only serve approximately two-thirds of their SWR order.
In addition, where a young person’s needs require certain support, programmes on living skills, various forms of
rehabilitation, and counselling, can be provided.
While on a SWR order, young people will have a structured routine and be engaged in daily schooling classes that focus
on education. Fitness and wellbeing is also incorporated into a young person’s day and there is a strong focus on reintegration back into the community (following the completion on a SWR order).
Young people on a SWR order who are selected for the MAC could commence this programme at any point during their
SWR order, to line-up with the schedule of MAC programmes.
After completing the MAC the young person will return to the youth justice residence to
complete the duration of their SWR order.
Duration: three to six months (including time on MAC)
Supervision with Residence (SwR) order
Residential Phase
A Supervision order outlines various programmes
and services that a young person is required to
participate in, based on their identified needs,
strengths, and risks. This may include key
interventions such as parenting education,
mentoring, alcohol and other drugs, counselling,
and education/training/employment.
Field social workers complete a Social Work Report
and Plan that are submitted to the Youth Court. A
Youth Court Judge then makes a Supervision order
after considering the recommendations in the Social
Work Report.
Once a young person completes their SWR
order, they will transition back into the
community on a Supervision order.
Duration: six to twelve months
Supervision order
Community Phase
Figure 1: Overview of the Military-style Activity Camp programme
13
The MAC programme includes:

a nine-week MAC residential phase. This is delivered as part of a SwR order and takes place in
Te Puna Wai o Tuhinapo (TPW) Youth Justice Residence in Christchurch. During this phase the
programme utilises NZDF adventure-based learning facilities combining military-type activities as
part of a broader residential intervention programme, which includes therapeutic and educational
interventions. Between October 2010 and July 2013, nine MAC residential programmes were run,
with a total of 80 young people beginning the programme and 70 of these completing it. For more
detail on the residential component refer to Annex 2.
When the nine-week MAC residential programme finishes, some young people must remain in
residence to complete any remaining time of their SwR order. Almost all MAC graduates are
granted early release after serving two-thirds of the SwR order, and the majority of these leave
residence within two weeks of the graduation ceremony. However, those not granted early release,
and small numbers who are granted early release but are given the maximum six-month order
have been required to serve much longer periods. CYF are seeking, where possible, to minimise
this period because early evidence suggests that moving on to another residential unit after the
MAC residential phase can have a negative effect on the young people. This is discussed in more
detail in Chapter 6 of this report.

transition back into the community, on a Supervision order. When released from residence,
each young person must serve a Supervision order which is between six and 12 months duration
with ongoing support by a social-service provider. The development of a plan to return the young
person to the community, and the successful implementation of that plan, is crucial to the overall
effectiveness of the MAC programme. As discussed later in this report (see Chapter 6), questions
have been raised about the design and delivery of the community phase of the MAC programme.
Throughout both the residential and community phases, the MAC programme seeks to incorporate a
comprehensive range of rehabilitative and reintegrative services and programmes. For more detail
refer to Annex 2.
Who does the MAC programme target?
The target group for the MAC programme is young people with profiles consistent with those identified
in the literature as ‘life course persistent’ offenders.8 Many MAC participants will have started
offending at an early age, previously served a SwA or SwR order, and due to their offending behaviour
are on the cusp of a transferral to the adult justice system.
The criteria for MAC participants specify that they should be:

male

at least 15.5 years of age

in good health and keen to take part in physical activities and challenges

motivated to address their offending behaviour, with family support

willing to be transferred to TPW Youth Justice Residence in Christchurch for the duration of the
nine-week residential phase

subject to a current SwR order.
8
Life course persistent offenders tend to start offending early (before age 14), offend at high rates and keep offending into adulthood.
They account for around four per cent of all young people (or 20 per cent of young offenders) and are typically responsible for over half
of all youth crime. In contrast, ‘desisters’ (the majority of young offenders) begin offending later in adolescence (after 13 years of age),
offend at a lower rate and cease offending by the age of 24 to 28 (McLaren, K. L., 2000).
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
14
With the MAC residential programme scheduled only four times per year on set dates, this will mean
that the young person may spend time on their SwR order before and/or after they complete the MAC
programme in another residential unit.
Implementation of the MAC programme to date
Between October 2010 and July 2013, nine MAC residential programmes were run with a total of 80
young people beginning the programme and 70 of these completing it (see Table 2). While the
findings of the evaluation broadly apply to each of these discrete programmes, the qualitative
interviews focused on MAC programmes Four to Eight.
Table 2: MAC nine-week residential dates and numbers
Number of young
people on MAC
Number of
graduates of MAC
MAC schedule
Start date
End date
MAC One (Pilot)
11 October 2010
29 November 2010
10
10
MAC Three
18 July 2011
16 September 2011
10
8
MAC Four
10 October 2011
2 December 2011
9
9
MAC Five
30 January 2012
30 March 2012
9
8
MAC Six
23 April 2012
25 June 2012
9
7
MAC Seven
16 July 2012
14 September 2012
10
7
MAC Eight
15 October 2012
14 December 2012
9
8
MAC Nine
11 February 2013
12 April 2013
7
7
MAC Ten
6 May 2013
8 July 2013
7
6
80
70
Total
NOTE: Figures exclude the two MAC concept-tests run in September 2009 and April 2010 as these could not offer the full MAC programme
before the legislative changes were made in October 2010. Also excluded is MAC Two, which commenced in January 2011 but was not
completed due to the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch. No MAC was held in the second quarter of 2011 due to the ongoing effects
of the major earthquake and aftershocks.
Source: CYF operational data.
To date, 10 young people have started, but not completed, the MAC programme. Two people decided
to pull out before completion, four were removed early, and four took part to varying degrees but not
sufficiently to graduate. Ongoing disruptive behaviour, lack of engagement or effort, or physical/verbal
abuse toward staff were often cited as the reasons for non-completion. In at least two cases, this
behaviour was said to have stemmed from serious mental health issues.
The MAC programme has continued to evolve since the pilot (MAC One) was run in late 2010. For
example, there have been a number of changes to both the residential and transition phases, and
action taken to reduce the time MAC participants have to spend in other residential units to complete
their SwR order.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
15
3. MAC participants, risk factors and
offending outcomes
SUMMARY

The typical MAC participant is a 16-year-old Māori male from the North Island who
presents with an array of risk factors. He commonly lacks a positive male role model in his
life, is known to the care and protection arm of CYF, has disengaged from school at an
early age, misuses alcohol and/or drugs and associates with antisocial peers. Most such
participants have one or more of the following: mental health concerns, anger
management issues, learning difficulties, cognitive problems, and/or issues from past grief
or trauma.

In terms of their offending, MAC participants typically first came to the attention of the NZ
Police for offending at around age 12, have an average of around 30 prior offences, and
were sent on the MAC programme for offences such as aggravated robbery, burglary or
serious assault.

The MAC programme was designed to address multiple risk factors, although the
programme documentation does not elaborate in detail on how this is to be achieved.

Reoffending data for young people who have been back in the community for at least 12
months suggest that the MAC programme is achieving some promising results. Six (or 17
per cent) of the 35 MAC graduates examined did not reoffend within 12 months of being
released from residence, 29 (83 per cent) reduced the frequency of their offending, and
26 (74 per cent) reduced the seriousness of their offending.

However, the small numbers who have completed the programme so far means that it’s
too early to say whether these results are any different from what might have been
achieved by a standard SwR order. The impact of the MAC programme on recidivism
results will be formally tested through a robust statistical analysis by the end of 2014.
This chapter outlines the profile of young people participating in the MAC programme, then discusses
the risk factors often associated with offending behaviour. Finally, it examines reoffending outcomes
for those MAC graduates who have completed their SwR order and been back in the community for 12
months or more.
Profile of MAC participants
Set out below is a profile of 37 of the MAC programme participants who successfully graduated from
MACs Four through Eight9. Figure 2 describes the typical MAC programme participant (in terms of an
average value, or the majority of young people having a particular characteristic eg more than half of
the participants are Māori). Information has been taken from key documents and social worker case
notes within the CYRAS database. The information represents the social workers’ informed
9
Excludes two young people for whom complete information was not available.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
16
understanding about the young people before they went on the MAC programme. Where no
information was recorded in relation to a particular issue, this could mean that it was not an issue for
that young person or that the social worker did not record it as an issue. As such, caution is needed
when interpreting this information.
Figure 2: Typical MAC participant
Māori
Comes from the
North Island
Sent on the MAC for offences
such as aggravated robbery,
burglary or a serious assault
Lacks a positive male
role model in their life
Has mental health concerns,
anger management issues,
learning difficulties, cognitive
problems, and/or issues from
past grief or trauma
16 year old male
Typical MAC
participant
Has an average of
around 30 prior offences
Is known to the care and
protection arm of CYF (e.g.
notification of abuse or neglect;
being placed in care; or
behavioural issues)
Disengaged from
school at an early age
First came to the attention of Police
for offending at around age 12
Associates with antisocial peers
Misuses alcohol and/or
drugs
Demographic and health characteristics
To date, 60 per cent of MAC participants have been Māori, with European and Pacific Peoples each
accounting for 19 per cent. However, the ethnicity of MAC participants can vary greatly for each
discrete residential programme.
All 37 young people broadly met the selection criteria set out for the MAC programme (see Chapter 2).
Two had reported physical health issues but these were not regarded as a barrier to participating in
the MAC programme. Other participants had relatively minor physical health issues, such as exerciseinduced asthma, eczema, or dental and/or hearing problems that could be associated with neglect.
Nearly half the young people (three to four on each MAC) had identified mental health concerns such
as Conduct Disorder or ADHD, issues with grief or anxiety, learning difficulties, problems stemming
from past trauma (post-traumatic stress disorder) or cognitive problems. Of particular concern was that
a few of these young people were not properly managing their condition because they did not take
medication as prescribed or were continuing to misuse drugs and/or alcohol. Seven young people
were reported as having thought about suicide or as having attempted suicide. All but one of these
young people also had a mental health concern.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
17
Motivation and offending
While motivation to address their offending is listed among the guidelines for selection onto the MAC
programme, few social workers noted specifically that the young person they were working with was
motivated and willing to address their offending behaviour. Only about half of the 37 MAC participants
expressed remorse for their offending, with most doing so directly after their offending.
Participants had committed a range of offences prior to being sent on the MAC programme. The most
serious offence leading to being sent on the MAC usually involved aggravated robbery, burglary or a
serious assault. MAC participants committed an average of around 30 prior offences. Breaching a
recent SwA or Supervision order was part of the reason for being on the MAC programme for a few
young people, and the breach often involved new offending. Five young people with fewer than 10
prior offences were all sentenced to the MAC programme for serious violent offences, either
aggravated robbery or wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Other characteristics
Other characteristics or risks associated with these young people, as recorded in CYRAS, include the
following:

Early disengagement from school – most (but not all) of the young people disengaged early from
the mainstream school system. Many had been stood down or excluded from school on more than
one occasion, and/or had truancy issues. Some engaged in various forms of alternative education,
although often this proved unsuccessful.

AOD misuse – only two social workers noted that the young person they were working with did not
have an issue with AOD misuse. A few were reported as using alcohol and/or cannabis only
occasionally, whereas others had long-term patterns of alcohol and/or cannabis abuse. Nineteen
young men were listed as having offended under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or offended to
support their cannabis use. Ten had been referred to AOD counselling, with only three attending.
Research suggests that prior criminal behaviour tends to predict drug use, while drug use also
tends to predict criminal behaviour.10

Anger management – over half of the young men were considered to have anger management
issues, often manifested in violent behaviour and offending.

Antisocial attitudes – some young people had negative attitudes toward others and held very
antisocial beliefs, ranging from being self-absorbed, idealising the ‘gangster’ lifestyle, or fighting to
gain respect.

History of care and protection – most young people were known to the Care and Protection arm of
CYF from being the subject of notifications of abuse or neglect, being placed in care, or through
behavioural issues.

Difficult home life – not all young people were believed to be living with families (either parents or
wider whānau) that provided a supportive and positive home life, which in turn could become an
issue for the young person on leaving the residence. Harsh and inconsistent parenting styles are
associated with criminal offending.11 Where there was a supportive family, this was likely to be the
mother or another female relative.

Lack of a positive male role model – all but a few MAC young men were completely disconnected
from their biological fathers. In most cases, the young person’s father had separated from the
10
The Werry Centre (2010).
11
Fergusson, Boden & Hayne (2011).
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
18
mother and was not present in the young person’s life. A few had passed away or committed
suicide. Some fathers who did have contact with the young person had mental health or AOD
concerns of their own, or were in and out of prison. Some young people had problems with their
step-fathers or mothers’ partners. A small number did however have an uncle, grandfather or
brother who was able to act as a positive role model.

Family history of offending – 14 young men, split evenly across the MAC programmes, had a
family history of offending.

Negative peer influence – the young men were often described as associating with peers similar to
themselves (eg other young people known to the NZ Police), with some offending with their peers.
The information above shows the complicated lives of the young people who participate in the MAC
programme and their risk factors for offending behaviour. MAC participants often presented with
multiple risk factors (see Box 1).
Big point – you have a look at what their start was, and you wonder how they ever got to being
15 and getting into trouble, with everything in their lives – solo mum, violence, drugs, alcohol,
neglect – how did they get here, and how did we not see them at eight or four, as you would
have expected them to be offending ages ago? They have every right to be angry, and every
right to be annoyed with the world, and every right to be feeling the way that they feel. (CYF
staff member)
Box 1: Young people with multiple risk factors are common
Tyrone was raised by his great grandmother after he was taken into custody by CYF when he was a toddler. His
home environment was believed to be unsafe because of a conflictive relationship between his parents and
alcohol and drug use by both parents. He has younger siblings living with his great-grandmother and other
younger siblings who live with his father. Tyrone left high school when he was 16 years old to look for full-time
employment.
He has tended to develop relationships with antisocial peers, whom he tries to impress by behaving badly.
Tyrone has ADHD and Conduct Disorder, both of which may contribute to his offending behaviour, but he has
refused medication. He also has a long-term pattern of using alcohol and cannabis to help manage his feelings
of anger. His great-grandmother believes that since he was a young boy, Tyrone has struggled to manage his
emotions, especially his anger, despite ongoing support from the local community and school.
NZ Police stated that Tyrone has used violence on numerous occasions with apparent disregard towards his
victims, and that he has no respect for authority. His social worker described him as aggressive and violent. Prior
to starting on the MAC programme, Tyrone had started to gravitate towards a local gang.
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
Can the MAC programme address the risk factors associated with youth offending and
build on the protective factors?
For these young people, understanding the extent and breadth of the risk factors associated with their
offending is essential if they are to be helped to address their offending behaviour. The MAC
programme has been designed to address many of the well-established risk factors associated with
youth offending and to build on the protective factors at the individual, family, school and community
level (see Figure 3 and Annex 2). For example:
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
19

The MAC programme seeks to reduce risk factors by providing interventions that target those
factors (eg AOD counselling and criminogenic group therapy – refer to Annex 2). Furthermore
these interventions should be integrated across both the residential and community phases as the
nine-week residential programme alone is likely to be too short to adequately address many of the
risk factors.

The MAC programme can focus on building on protective factors (such as self-esteem and selfcontrol) and lay the foundations for others (eg engaging in school for longer and performing well
academically). However, for other protective factors (eg lower level of family adversity) the MAC
programme may not be a sufficient intervention.
Figure 3: Key risk and protective factors for future offending
Risk factors
Protective factors
Young person
 Higher self-esteem
 Greater cautiousness & self-control
 Cultural pride/positive identity
 Positive outlook on life
Family
 Greater supervision and monitoring by
caregivers
 Greater emotional attachment and
closeness between parents & young person
 Low levels of family adversity
School & peers
 Greater association with pro-social peers
 Good academic performance
 Engaged in school for longer
Community
 Positive adult-youth relationships in the
community
 Living in a safe community
Young person
 Higher number of prior offences *
 Aggression, fighting, violent offences *
 Low self-control, impulsivity *
 Hyperactivity, poor attention *
 Tendency towards anxiety & stress *
 Longer first incarceration *
 Substance abuse
 Lack of cultural pride/positive identity
 Demonstrating antisocial attitudes (including
lack of remorse)
 Mental health problems
Family
 Poor supervision by caregivers *
 Low levels of warmth, affection and closeness
with parents *
 Exposure to family violence, childhood
maltreatment (including abuse and neglect)
 Not having a relationship with their father
 Family history of antisocial behaviour and/or
substance abuse
School & peers
 Contact with antisocial peers *
 Few friends or social/recreational activities *
 Disengagement from school & poor academic
achievement
 Lack of vocational skills
Community
 Living in a disadvantaged community
NOTE: * refers to the top 10 risk factors for young people aged 13 years and over as identified in the Christchurch and Dunedin longitudinal
studies (Ministry of Justice, 2008). McLaren (2000) outlines other recognised risk factors and these are also included. Risk factors can be
static (such as their age at first offence) or dynamic (such as contact with antisocial peers). Dynamic risk factors of offending (or
‘criminogenic needs’) are typically the focus of interventions aimed at reducing offending.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
20
However, in the documentation supporting the MAC programme, there is little discussion about risk
factors that are not being addressed or sufficiently ameliorated (eg unsupportive family or peers,
unstable home life, unemployment, mental health issues, and so on) and the impact this might have
on reoffending behaviour. In other words, to what extent are the many and multiple risk factors that are
addressed by the MAC programme for each young person sufficient to help them to stop offending?
These and other issues are discussed in more detail in Chapters Four to Six.
MAC reoffending trends (to date)
The majority of young people sentenced to supervision-type orders reoffend within 12 months, with
figures ranging from 78 per cent for those on Supervision orders to 87 per cent for those on SwR
orders (for more detail see Annex 4). However, the frequency and seriousness of new offences being
committed are more often than not shown to be less than that of earlier offending.
Using NZ Police offence occurrence data for the period up to 14 June 2013, we examined reoffending
patterns in the six-month and 12-month periods after MAC participants were released from residence.
Offence occurrences represent a history of contact with NZ Police where it is believed that an offence
took place. An offence occurrence does not necessarily result in a charge being laid in court or imply
that the offence has been formally proven. However, offence occurrences provide a more consistent
measure of offending patterns than court outcomes data for young people, given a large proportion of
offences are diverted from prosecution.12
Table 3 shows that 40 per cent of MAC participants did not reoffend within six months of being
released from residence. Seventy-one per cent reduced the frequency and 73 per cent reduced the
seriousness of their offending, compared to the six-month period before entering the residence. The
figures for individual MACs are highly variable due to the small number of participants involved.
Table 3: Reoffending outcomes in the six months after completing the MAC residential programme
MAC
One
MAC
Three
MAC
Four
MAC
Five
MAC
Six
MAC
Seven
MAC
Eight
(n = 10)
(n = 8)
(n = 9)
(n = 8)
(n = 7)
(n = 7)
(n = 6)
Did not reoffend
20%
(2)
50%
(4)
56%
(5)
38%
(3)
43%
(3)
43%
(3)
33%
(2)
40%
(22)
Reduced frequency of offending
60%
(6)
75%
(6)
89%
(8)
75%
(6)
86%
(6)
71%
(5)
33%
(2)
71%
(39)
Reduced seriousness of offending
60%
(6)
63%
(5)
100%
(9)
75%
(6)
71%
(5)
43%
(3)
100%
(6)
73%
(40)
Measures
Overall
(n = 55)
Note: ‘MAC One’ was the first (pilot) MAC held under the Fresh Start reforms in October and November 2010. There were two concepttest MACs run before this. ‘MAC Two’ is not included in the table as it was interrupted by the February 2011 earthquake and the military
component could not be delivered. Figures exclude two people from MAC Eight who had not yet been out of residence for six months.
Source: Analysis was undertaken by the Knowledge & Insights Group, MSD, using offence occurrence data sourced from NZ Police as
at June 2013.
Only 35 of the 55 MAC participants included in Table 3 had been out of residence for at least 12
months. Table 4 shows that six (17 per cent) of these did not reoffend within 12 months of being
released from residence. Most (83 per cent) reduced the frequency of their offending in the 12 months
12
Caution should be taken if comparing the reoffending figures presented here to figures based on other measures such as arrests or
prosecutions or proved cases.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
21
after release, compared to the 12 months before entering the residence, while 74 per cent reduced the
seriousness of their offending.
Table 4: Reoffending outcomes in the 12 months after completing the MAC residential programme
MAC One
MAC Three
MAC Four
MAC Five
Overall
(n = 10)
(n = 8)
(n = 9)
(n = 8)
(n = 35)
Did not reoffend
0% (0)
13% (1)
22% (2)
38% (3)
17% (6)
Reduced frequency of offending
70% (7)
88% (7)
89% (8)
88% (7)
83% (29)
Reduced seriousness of offending
40% (4)
75% (6)
100% (9)
88% (7)
74% (26)
Measures
Source: Analysis was undertaken by the Knowledge and Insights Group using offence occurrence data sourced from NZ Police as at
June 2013.
Theft-related, burglary and unlawful entry, and property damage were by far the most common offence
types committed by MAC participants in the 12 months prior to entering residence (see Figure 4).
While this was still the case in the 12 months after leaving residence, there were large drops in both
the total numbers of such offences committed (Figure 4) and in the proportion of MAC participants
who committed such offences (Figure 5).
Figure 4: Changes in the total frequency of offences committed by MAC participants within 12
months, by ANZSOC offence division
Theft-related
Burglary & unlawful entry
Property damage
Public order
Acts intended to cause injury
Traffic
Against justice
Robbery-related
Illicit drugs
Fraud & deception
Dangerous acts
Weapons-related
Abduction & harassment
12 months prior
Sexual
12 months after
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Number of offences
Note:
Offences are categorised according to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (ANZSOC) 2011.
Acts intended to cause injury and robbery-related offences both dropped in number in the 12 months
after the MACs (by 30 per cent and 70 per cent respectively). Fraud and deception-related offences
was the only offence category to show an increase in numbers in the 12 months after the MACs,
compared to the 12 months before. This stemmed from a small increase in offences involving a young
person using a document or credit card for pecuniary advantage.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
22
Figure 5: Percentage of MAC participants who committed one or more offences within each
ANZSOC offence division within 12 months
Theft-related
Burglary & unlawful entry
Property damage
Public order
Acts intended to cause injury
Traffic
Against justice
Robbery-related
Illicit drugs
Fraud & deception
Dangerous acts
Weapons-related
Abduction & harassment
Sexual
12 months prior
12 months after
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Percentage of people
Note:
Offences are categorised according to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (ANZSOC) 2011.
The MAC programme appears to be achieving some promising results compared with all other
supervision-type orders. However, the small numbers who have completed the programme so far
means that it’s too early to say whether these results are any different from what might have been
achieved by a standard SwR order. The impact of the MAC programme on recidivism results will be
formally tested through a robust statistical analysis by the end of 2014.
Nonetheless, given that the MAC programme seeks to target the 40 most serious and persistent
young male offenders each year, the MAC programme does seem to offer another option for the youth
justice system to address the offending behaviour for this specific group of young people. This
assumes that the MAC programme is being targeted effectively towards this small group of serious
and persistent young male offenders. This is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Since the MAC evaluation report was completed, additional reoffending data has become available
(see Annex 5).
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
23
4. Selection and referral
SUMMARY

A decision to refer someone to the MAC programme is usually made at the Family Group
Conference (FGC). The evaluation shows that social workers, who provide advice at the FGC
about a young person’s suitability for the MAC programme, varied in their adherence to the
selection criteria. MAC participants could all be described as serious or persistent offenders,
and many were on the cusp of a transferral to the adult justice system. However, MAC
participants are not necessarily all among the country’s 40 most serious and persistent
offenders in a given year.

The lack of alternatives to the MAC programme was a factor in some referrals. Some YJ social
workers recognised the potential benefits of the therapeutic aspects of the MAC programme
and felt that if their young person had to go to residence it was preferable to go on the MAC
programme, even if they did not meet all the criteria.

The number of potential candidates for the MAC programme (eg young people with SwR
orders) is falling. CYF operational data shows SwR orders have fallen over 20 per cent in two
years which, in part, reflects a significant drop in recent years in the number of 14- to 16-yearolds apprehended by the NZ Police – down by 18 per cent between 2009/10 and 2011/12. This
could have implications for the number and types of young people who are available to
participate in future MAC programmes.

Improving the selection and referral process is essential if the benefits of the programme are to
be fully realised and its limited resources used most wisely. The evaluation identified a number
of issues that would need to be addressed to strengthen the selection and referral process for
the MAC programme. These include the following:
-
Promoting increased awareness of the MAC programme amongst social workers,
especially the selection criteria, is particularly important given their role in the selection
and referral process.
-
Screening and assessment of young peoples’ needs and risks is required in all cases to
ensure that the young people receive the help they need to address their offending
behaviour. The evaluation has shown that 31 per cent of MAC participants did not have
a completed TRAX assessment – the main Youth Justice risk and assessment tool at
the time of the evaluation.
-
Improving assessment and support around mental health issues is needed as some who
were found to have moderate to severe mental health issues that were not under control
were very disruptive to the delivery of the programme.
-
Better alignment of sentences with the quarterly MAC commencement dates is needed
so that a greater number of potential candidates can take part in the programme.
-
Some social workers expressed concern about the resourcing associated with sending
someone on the MAC programme. For example, the high costs of sending social
workers, family members and mentors to Christchurch from provincial North Island
centres.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
24
In this chapter we discuss those parts of the selection and referral process that are working well and
highlight a number of areas for improvement. Figure 6 provides an overview of the selection and
referral process.
Referrals to the MAC programme are undertaken in consultation with other professionals and family
members and, of course, the young people have to agree to take part. Generally, a young person’s
social worker will contact CYF National Office and TPW staff to seek more information about the MAC
programme and discuss the suitability of the young person. They will then draw up a plan that will go
before the Youth Court. Ultimately, the judge decides whether or not the young person participates in
the MAC programme.
The number of potential candidates for the MAC programme is falling. CYF operational data shows
there were a total of 175 SwR orders in 2010/11, falling to 159 in 2011/12 and 138 in 2012/13, a fall of
over 20 per cent in two years. This fall, at least in part, reflects a significant drop in recent years in the
number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended by the NZ Police – down by 18 per cent between 2009/10
and 2011/12. Further, only seven and six young people, respectively, completed the first two MAC
residential programmes in 2013. These changes could mean that fewer than 40 young people will
participate on the MAC programme each year, unless the selection criteria are changed.
Figure 6: Selection and referral process
Young person is apprehended for
offending and appears in the
Youth Court
Consultation with young
person, family and
other professionals
CYF receive a Youth Court
directed FGC referral
Social worker identifies
the young person is
eligible for the MAC
Assessments (e.g.
YORST, TRAX)
FGC held and plan agreed on
Young person re-appears in the
Youth Court and due to the
frequency and/or severity of
offending, a SwR order is made,
including participation on the MAC
Selection and referral
to the MAC residential
programme of 40 most
serious and persistent
youth offenders
Young person
attends the MAC
residential
programme
Young person
engages in the
MAC residential
programme
Young person
has the attitude,
motivation and
skills not to
reoffend
The young
person makes
pro-social
choices in the
community
The young
person is
independent and
self-managing
What’s working?
The MAC programme was designed as a last-chance intervention for serious and persistent young
offenders. Box 2 highlights one example of how this last chance might come into play. In other cases,
the age of the young person might be a factor (eg before he enters the adult justice system).
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
25
Offending data show that all of the young people sentenced to the MAC programme were persistent
offenders, or had committed a serious offence such as an aggravated robbery or a serious assault.
However, it is debatable whether all of these young people could be considered among the 40 worst
youth offenders in the country – particularly as at least one young person was a first offender.
The qualitative interviews identified that the selection criteria are broadly being used by the YJ social
workers. Other considerations are also taken into account by the social workers, not least the
motivation and capability of the young people. These are discussed in turn below.
Box 2: A last chance in the youth justice system
Caleb had committed a number of dishonesty-related offences and his social workers were concerned about his
future. Caleb had been through every other intervention with little success in changing his behaviour. They felt
that he needed something that would refocus him and put him on a path to a more stable and constructive
future. The social workers thought the MAC residential programme would help put Caleb on that path for a
number of reasons:

He was motivated to attend.

It was hands-on and physical.

It was group-focused, which would address his need to belong.

The strong cultural component would assist in building links with his mother and would build on Caleb’s
existing cultural experience (eg attending his local marae).

He needed the structure and boundaries provided by the programme.
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
Applying the criteria
A decision to refer someone to the MAC programme is usually made at the FGC (see Figure 1,
earlier). Social workers, who provide advice at the FGC about a young person’s suitability for the MAC
programme, varied in their adherence to the selection criteria.
All seven YJ social workers interviewed for the evaluation had taken time to consider the criteria for
the MAC programme, the needs of the young people, and what they felt could be achieved by
referring them to the MAC programme. As outlined in the criteria, YJ social workers took into account
the nature and extent of the offending histories of the young people before making a referral to the
MAC programme:
I don’t want to send a young person to MAC for lower end offending – I want to be sure the
offending is consistent. I have sent two young people to MAC because I know the offending
matches the consequences. (YJ social worker)
In addition, consideration was given to a number of other factors, including their level of physical
fitness, their resilience and maturity, the benefit of one-on-one counselling sessions, and family
support for the programme. The YJ social workers paid particular attention to how they expected the
young people to react to boundaries and structure, and whether they would buy in to the programme:
The young person’s willingness to do it – I won’t force my client to do something they don’t
really want to do. The second thing is the response of the family...The third thing is [whether]
the young person really craves or wants boundaries in their life – but they don’t have positive
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
26
role models in their life to impose it. They want the boundaries and stability and I know they will
respond to that. (YJ social worker)
One YJ social worker did not put forward one of their young people for the MAC programme because
of his resistance to adhere to boundaries. Addressing the needs of the young person was often the
primary motivator for the YJ social workers (see Box 3). There were young people who did not meet all
the criteria but their YJ social workers still believed them to be an appropriate referral.
Box 3: A good fit?
Travis was a high-risk offender with problematic substance use. He had problems with managing his anger but
was also bigger than most of his peers and this made him a target. It was common for people to pick fights with
him.
He lived with his mother who was a sole parent working full-time. While their relationship was difficult at times,
she was supportive. However, her parenting style was ‘relaxed’ and she had struggled to control his behaviour.
Travis’s social worker was looking for an intervention that had a daily schedule to provide structure and that
could help Travis develop pride in himself and his abilities. Travis’s social worker, his mentor and his mother all
believed the MAC residential programme could provide this.
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
Other considerations when making referrals
Among YJ social workers interviewed, a factor in some referrals was the perception that other
residential units lacked or had inadequate rehabilitative alternatives compared with the MAC
programme. Some YJ social workers recognised the potential benefits of the therapeutic aspects of
the MAC programme and felt that if their young person had to go to residence and met the criteria,
then it was preferable to go on the MAC programme, for example one said: ‘instead of just sitting in
residence … it would be better to learn some real skills and training [during MAC] for later on’.
One YJ social worker commented that the additional resource attached to MAC participants to assist
them in the transition back into the community was an incentive to consider referring people to the
programme.
Young people need to be motivated and capable to participate
Social workers interviewed reported they needed to assess the underlying motivation of the young
people wanting to participate on the MAC programme. While the young person’s buy-in to the MAC
programme is generally regarded as having paramount importance, buy-in can take a number of
forms. The buy-in could be because the young person genuinely wants to make long-term change in
their lives; however there was a view that some young people’s interest in the MAC programme was
driven by a belief that their participation would reduce their sentence or allow them to avoid adult
prison.
It is also important to identify what capabilities young people need in order to cope with the MAC
programme. One of these is the cognitive ability to understand the purpose of the MAC programme,
why they are asked to undertake certain activities, and what they learn from them. Another factor for
selection is the emotional and mental capacity to be able to function on the programme. Although it
was acknowledged that generally the young people on the MAC programme were likely to be
vulnerable due to their challenging backgrounds, young people with moderate or severe mental health
issues that were not under control were considered unsuitable for selection. Staff had identified two
specific examples where this had happened and how difficult it was for the young people and staff
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
27
involved. The ethos of the MAC residential programme is that the investment into each young person
has to be consistent across the group, and that dealing with a young person who is not coping with the
MAC programme diverts that energy away from the others. One NZDF staff member said that in the
NZDF ‘we’re used to treating everyone the same. If we have to treat someone as special it influences
the whole MAC’.
Areas for improvement
A number of areas for improvement have been identified, mainly drawn from the qualitative interviews
and the CYF administrative data analysis, that could strengthen the selection and referral process for
the MAC programme. These include:

improved assessment of young peoples’ needs and risks

increased awareness of the MAC programme amongst social workers

alignment of sentences with MAC programme dates

resolution of some concerns by social workers’ around resourcing.
Need for improved assessment of young peoples’ needs and risks
In the CYRAS analysis undertaken for this evaluation, we sought to confirm how many TRAX
assessments had been completed for the young people around the time they received their SwR/MAC
order. Of the 42 young people for whom information was captured (including some young people from
MAC Three), only 29 (69 per cent) had evidence of a completed TRAX assessment within CYRAS.
This is clearly a risk for both the rehabilitation of the young people and for the overall impact of the
programme on reducing reoffending. Without a full and accurate assessment, risk factors associated
with offending behaviour may not be identified and may be left untreated.
As noted earlier, undiagnosed mental and physical health issues can be disruptive to the MAC
programme, and these should be assessed prior to the young person commencing the MAC
programme.
Increased awareness of the MAC programme amongst social workers
There was some concern among MAC staff about the referral process to the MAC programme,
particularly with regard to the awareness and understanding among YJ social workers, who are
responsible for identifying suitable young people for the MAC programme. One MAC staff member
had recently spoken with a YJ social worker who had not heard of the MAC programme, and there
was also concern about misinformation or a lack of understanding about what the MAC programme
involved, in particular how perceptions may have been influenced by negative media reporting in the
past.
Most of the YJ social workers interviewed as part of the evaluation had heard about the MAC
programme from other colleagues, as well as from material sent to the young people and their
families. This information is seen as important to gain buy-in from the young people from the start,
which in turn helps them to cope during what is often regarded as a tough first few weeks.
While having social workers learn about the MAC programme through word-of-mouth might not be
ideal, it can be a powerful way to promote awareness and understanding of the MAC programme,
especially when a YJ social worker has had a positive experience with referring a young person to the
MAC programme:
… instead of just sending young people away to residence, we were looking for something to
provide daily schedule, pride in themselves, working with people such as the army, and I did
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
28
myself try and approach the local army corps to see if they could provide anything for our
young people who didn’t quite reach residence … I learnt … we’ve finally got this programme
… yay it’s going to happen, I wonder how it’s going to look … (YJ social worker)
However, at least for those YJ social workers interviewed as part of the evaluation, most considered
themselves to not have a full understanding or knowledge of the MAC programme. This is clearly a
concern, and may result in suitable candidates for the MAC programme not being identified and
unsuitable candidates being put forward.
Need for alignment of sentences with MAC programme dates
Several YJ social workers described the timing of sentences as an issue for referral to the MAC
programme, as the four MAC intakes each year all start on specified dates. Depending on court
timetables and court delays there can be a wait of a month or more before a young person is
sentenced. The sentence may also be short and the young person may get early release, which
means he would miss out on part of the MAC programme and/or the graduation ceremony. YJ social
workers are expected to use the FGC and court process to ensure that suitable young people can
attend and complete the MAC programme:
I … knew that the MAC programme was coming up so I asked that the judge give a sentence
that worked in line with the MAC programme … in our reports we can do that, we rationalise
that. (YJ social worker)
Some young people are referred to the MAC at the last minute before a programme is due to
commence, with only a day or two of preparation time. This does not allow much time for discussion
with the young person and his family to make a decision about the appropriateness of the MAC
programme.
Resolution of some concerns by social workers’ around resourcing
Sending a young person to the MAC programme can incur costs for CYF regional offices over and
above those of other residential units. For example, travel costs for social workers, family members
and mentors to and from TPW, and costs of providing intensive mentoring. Some YJ social workers
raised this as an issue and potentially a barrier to referring some young people to the MAC
programme. Travel and related costs are perceived as high for provincial centres in the North Island
because of the absence of cheaper fares that are available to the large urban centres, leading to travel
costs reaching several thousand dollars for just one MAC participant. In addition, CYF regional offices
may need to cover the equipment costs associated with the wilderness camp element of the MAC
programme.
Some YJ social workers acknowledged the workload for referring a young person to the MAC
programme was greater than that for a regular residence. One YJ social worker said the referral
process was tough: ‘There’s more paperwork – more scrutiny because the programme costs more.’
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
29
5. MAC residential phase
SUMMARY

There is general consensus that the nine-week residential programme does help to
improve the attitudes and motivation of the young people graduating from the MAC
programme to address their offending behaviour.

The design of the programme, the role of the NZDF, and the commitment of the staff help
the programme to ‘walk the talk’, and in so doing provide the young people with a new
perspective on life and new positive role models.

The involvement of the NZDF in the MAC programme is regarded as critical to its
success. The uniform is respected by the young people and NZDF staff bring their unique
experience of teamwork to help break down barriers, promote the principle of equity, and
help the young people to build self-awareness and self-discipline.

Many MAC participants were able to achieve some qualifications while on the residential
programme.

The evaluation identified some operational issues as potentially hindering the impact of
the MAC residential programme.
-
Most importantly, determining the most suitable approach to the delivery of the
criminogenic programme.
Other possible improvements include:
-
improving the flow of information between TPW Youth Justice Residence and
social workers, family and/or mentors in the community
-
better integration of the components of the residential programme, and clearer
definition of the overall goals and intended outcomes (this includes ensuring that
residential staff have a better understanding of all the components of the
residential programme, what each component is working to achieve, and how they
should fit together to achieve the overall objectives of the programme)
-
working to overcome some of the drawbacks of delivering the MAC residential
phase in only one location, eg engagement with family/whānau not located in
Christchurch.
This chapter first highlights those aspects of the residential phase that are generally perceived to be
working well, and which are ultimately seen to lead to positive changes in the attitudes and behaviours
of the young people. The chapter also discusses some operational issues that are believed to hinder
the effectiveness of the residential phase.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
30
There is broad consensus that the nine-week residential phase provides an important and possibly
unparalleled opportunity, within the New Zealand context, for the young people participating in the
programme to change their offending behaviour (see Figure 7). This does not guarantee that the
young people will not go on to reoffend, but it does help some young people to understand or identify
potential triggers or risk factors associated with their offending and help them to identify ways to
manage these triggers. As discussed in Chapter 3, understanding the triggers behind their offending
behaviour is an important step for each young person in reducing their offending.
Figure 7: MAC residential programme
Education and
vocational training
Health stabilisation
and healthy activity
Safe care and
containment
Behavioural
management system
Skills acquisition /
development
Transition planning
Military-style Activity Camp (MAC)
Selection and referral
to the MAC
residential
programme of 40
most serious and
persistent youth
offenders
Young person attends
the MAC residential
programme
Young person engages in
the MAC residential
programme
Young person has the
attitude, motivation and
skills not to reoffend
The young person
makes pro-social
choices in the
community
Challenging
activities and team
work skills
Full assessments
Wilderness camp
Criminogenic group
therapy
Wānanga cultural
programme
AOD counselling
Key strengths of the MAC residential phase
Before looking at the key strengths of the residential programme, it is useful to look at how one young
person experienced the residential programme as a whole and how it was believed to have helped
him (see Box 4).
Those interviewed for the evaluation have identified four specific strengths of the residential
programme, namely:

the more positive attitudes and evident changes in behavior in the young people

the achievement of some qualifications while on the residential programme

the positive role and influence of the NZDF

strong leadership and teamwork ethos.
These are discussed in turn below.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
31
Box 4: : The MAC experience
Tyrone had heard positive things about the MAC programme from others:
Was getting told about it from people [who had been on the MAC] saying it was quite awesome ... They
showed us pictures of them ... came out fit, in a better state.
While initially presenting with some challenging behaviours and mind sets, Tyrone responded positively to the
strong boundaries and clear expectations set by the NZDF. He worked hard to improve his self-management,
especially in times of emotional distress, which has led to a significant improvement in the way he reacts to
situations, manages stress and conveys his views. At times, Tyrone still struggles with his emotions, but he more
often displays a much more mature and collected approach.
The adventure programmes (eg the wilderness camp, caving, military confidence course and Waka Ama) have
allowed Tyrone to develop his confidence and self-belief, whilst also providing him with leadership and problemsolving skills and improving his cooperation and teamwork abilities.
During the criminogenic programme, the facilitators identified that Tyrone did exceptionally well at identifying his
triggers, his high-risk situations, and possible coping strategies. He also was able to easily understand various
concepts and effects. Tyrone participated in one-on-one AOD counselling sessions, where he discussed AODrelated consequences in relation to his specific situation as well as exploring links between his AOD misuse and
offending. He identified that AOD had caused him significant harm in the past and was directly related to his
offending. Tyrone also achieved a number of NCEA credits and passed a Barista course, his OSH Forklift
certification and a Site Safe building construction course.
His YJ social worker commented on the changes initially noticed in phone calls to Tyrone while he was on the
MAC residential programme:
To hear the joy… almost a normal kid’s voice coming through instead of being all staunch and trying to
be hard … and he started talking respectfully about other staff members.
Tyrone commented:
I loved the physical training, I’d be the first one up for PT at six … we’d have an overview of what we’d
done … it was mostly about our offending and anger management … most of us had real bad anger
management problems but we sorted them out there.
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality
More positive attitudes and changes in behaviour in the young people
CYRAS information shows that two-thirds of the 37 young people who completed the MAC residential
programme (for MACs Four to Eight, for whom we have information) maintained a positive standard of
behaviour throughout the nine-week programme, with only two reported as having regularly showed
negative behaviour such as disrespect for staff. In addition, more than three-quarters of the young
people were believed to have engaged positively with the MAC programme as a whole.
All staff interviewed for the evaluation talked about the positive changes they had observed in the
young people during the nine-week residential phase, including helping some of them to manage their
anger more effectively. However, the reported positive changes in the attitudes of the young people
need to be kept in perspective. A little over half of all MAC participants were recorded as having anger
management issues. For many of these young people this issue was associated with the violent
offence for which they were sentenced. While in the MAC residence, more than half of the young
people had one or more Secure Care admissions, usually for poor behaviour such as aggression or
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
32
continual non-compliance with instructions, during their SwR order. A few parts of the MAC
programme touch on managing anger, but one-to-one anger management counselling is not a regular
part of the programme. A few young people were recorded as having received such counselling in
residence, but there were examples of young people who could not access such support. As
aggressive and violent behaviour is identified in the research as a key criminogenic need for
adolescent offenders, addressing anger management issues more directly through appropriate
counselling might help to improve reoffending outcomes for more young people.
Other positive changes seen included MAC participants:

starting to internalise boundaries, taking responsibility for their own behaviour and
thinking of others in the team:
The young people are allowed a turn at making a phone call at night – a young person would
want a phone call. One staff member said ‘It’s your turn for a call tonight xxx’. The young
person owned up that it was not his phone call that night. He enjoyed being rewarded and
praised for doing a good job. He got into weights and taking care of his physical appearance. I
think he got the most improved award. (Residential staff member)
One person was a bully in the first week, but is now caring towards staff and other young
people. (Residential staff member)
One MAC graduate summed up how the programme helped him to change his attitude to
offending:
Before this programme I didn’t care about jail … I used to love it, getting chased by cops. I
used to look out the window and start laughing … who cares? I care now. (MAC participant)

being able to start, follow through and complete a task, and the reward this brought, with a
feeling of accomplishment. This led to an increase in confidence and belief in their ability to
succeed. One staff member described it as:
we ‘tool them up’ … give them the best chance of having a good outcome ... how to break the
cycle of offending.
Another YJ Social worker also commented on the change he observed in one young person when
he finished the residential programme, with his achievements acknowledged at the graduation
ceremony:
He came out shining with confidence, before that I think he was low in confidence, [he] thought
he was a failure, he was very big ... so the physical aspect of MAC was very challenging to
him. But he was really supported there.

taking much more care in how they dressed and presented themselves by the end of the
MAC residential phase. These changes were believed to promote motivation and feelings of selfworth and self-confidence (see Box 5 overleaf).
MAC participants were seen as having fewer discipline or behavioural issues compared with non-MAC
residences. For example, one YJ social worker described contact with MAC residential staff as
generally positive. This is in contrast to contact with non-MAC residences about young people which is
usually about discipline or behavioural issues. This was summed up as: ‘I want to answer the phone
when [the MAC coordinator] rings!’ The teachers also noticed a difference between the young people
in other residential units to those on the MAC programme:
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
33
I put it down to the fact that they’re here [on the MAC] for a certain period of time, they’re
settled … in the other units there’s a constant coming and going … here they initially come
together … they may be from different gang affiliations, at the start there’s tensions … they go
on camp together … and at the end that kind of stuff all goes … and this translates to the
classroom … (School staff member)
One residential staff member suggested that when looking at the success or otherwise of the MAC
programme we needed to take a longer-term view, because sustained positive changes may not
emerge until the young person is in their mid-20’s:
Interesting reading in the paper a while back about how [the MAC programme] doesn’t
succeed and it’s not successful … I’m thinking wow … all you need to do is come along and
have a look …, and, you know, these young people may not change now, they may go back to
the reoffending … but by the time that frontal cortex has developed at 24, they have developed
those reasoning skills … they will know there is an option … that they can change, and they
know they can because they’ve done it … they know there’s other options ….They are real
survivors. We get to see the ones who’ve had the crappiest lives but they have skills … if we
can redevelop those skills to be leaders in another way … instead of being a leader in the mob,
being a leader in the community for youth … they have a different role model now.
Box 5: Improved attitude and feeling proud
Caleb felt a sense of belonging on the MAC residential programme, and was able to form strong bonds with both
the MAC staff and other young people. He reported feeling accepted and respected by the staff. He valued the
focus on the young people working as a team, supporting each other to behave in a pro-social way. Caleb was
reluctant to leave when the residential component came to an end.
The social worker felt that the MAC residential programme improved Caleb’s attitude, and he learned the value
of respect and having a place within a team environment, allowing him to grow into a young man during his nine
weeks on the MAC residential programme.
Caleb enjoyed the physical element of the programme along with the discipline, when it was respectful. There
were several elements of the MAC residential programme that gave Caleb the opportunity to feel proud of his
accomplishments. Caleb valued earning NCEA credits while on the programme. He also reported that he
enjoyed the MAC graduation ceremony – seeing the Minister, having his family there to celebrate his success,
and feeling that he had made his mother proud.
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
Achievement of some qualifications while on the residential programme
Information from CYRAS shows that almost all of the young people engaged positively with the
education and vocational component of the programme. Information provided by Kingslea School13
showed that within MACs Three to Eight, 26 (55 per cent) of the 47 young people achieved NCEA
Level 1 credits, including a small number who achieved some Level 2 credits. Twenty-five of the
young people achieved a total of 108 numeracy-related Level 1 credits between them, and 16
achieved a total of 39 literacy-related credits. Level 2 credits were achieved over the areas of
computing; business administration; and building, construction and allied trades skills.
13 Kingslea School is a special, composite, decile 1 school delivering education within CYF residences throughout New Zealand. See
Annex 2 for more details.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
34
All young people participating in the MACs sit for their OSH Forklift certification and Site Safe building
construction passport. All of the participants in MACs Three to Eight passed the Site Safe course, and
almost all achieved their Forklift certification. Eleven young people sat their learner licence tests while
participating in the MACs.
The positive role and influence of the NZDF
The involvement of the NZDF in the MAC programme was regarded as critical by a number of
stakeholders. Their role was described by NZDF staff as being “…the influence not the authority”,
allowing the NZDF staff to develop positive relationships with the MAC participants. Young people not
only respected the NZDF uniform, they responded positively to the principle of teamwork (which helps
to break down barriers) and the way the programme is run through the use of structured and routine
activities, and in particular the off-site activities. The challenging experiences that the young people
have to go through are also believed to promote self-awareness and self-discipline.
… a lot of it’s good role modelling with males … the army is really good at that, they just love
these army guys … they can see these guys are out there … they’re older guys, they’re fit,
they’ve got a sense of humour … they love it … I think that’s a really good thing with the army
… a lot of dads aren’t around. (Residential staff member)
The army talk a lot … I hear the phrase “boys to men” and that’s what’s really happening here
… they’re looking forward to coming out of here and thinking “I can have a job” … You say
what would you like to be doing in 10 years’ time they all want to have a family, they all want to
have a house and car and a wife and some kids … none of them will say they want to carry on
doing what they’ve been doing … if they can see there’s actually ways … that it is attainable …
I think we’re just giving them tools to do that …. (School staff member)
One MAC staff member gave the example of some young people not respecting MSD staff until the
NZDF staff told them to respect them. The culture of the NZDF permeates the residential component
of the MAC. This is seen as their unique contribution to the MAC programme, which would be difficult
to replicate with another provider. For example, one stakeholder said that they:
certainly wouldn’t take the army out … the army gives a lot of these boys some future … the
number of young people who go on to do LSV [Limited Service Volunteers]… is important … I
think that it gives these young people the idea that there is another way of life … most of the
army staff bring a Māori or Pacific Island perspective … and they bring another point of view …
While it is acknowledged that only the young people can really change their attitude and behaviour,
the NZDF staff, together with other MAC residential staff, seek to help them to grow in confidence and
self-esteem, and encourage the change in attitude and behaviour. The physical and off-site activities
are believed to be critical for getting the young people engaged:
It’s perfect for boys … they’re not allowed to rough house or play and I understand that, that
makes total sense because it can easily change. They need to have another outlet.
(Residential staff member)
Some young people had never experienced these types of activities, and to keep them they had to
learn to behave.
Those interviewed noted in particular that the uniform made a difference: ‘What we teach them is what
we do … and it’s exciting too’. One staff member felt that the MAC programme should be rolled out to
all other units because of what the military component taught young people. The following example
shows how one young person reacted to the military component of the MAC programme (see Box 6).
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
35
Box 6: Relishing the structure and routine
Ray said he did not like the MAC residence initially because of the physical demands and he wanted to leave,
but then he noticed he started to feel better and wanted to make the most of it. He liked being with the army, the
wilderness camp at the start and going on other off-site activities. He thought that having the structure and
routine helped him as it was not something he was used to. He observed that he became more self-disciplined
and:
didn’t get fired up so much … reacting … it wasn’t instant but after an amount of time I was able to keep
calmer.
His caseworker thought the building of key relationships on the MAC programme with a very small number of
staff who could influence his behaviour had a powerful impact on him:
he could shut down at a moment’s notice … I thought well the first time they’re going to yell at him he’s
going to fall over … but I think the key thing with MAC is … the army staff invest a lot of time into making
the kids feel special so no matter who you are or what your background is their attitude is you can be
successful … a lot of it’s down to your own attitude and I think that that really bolstered Ray. I saw a real
growing in his self-confidence and self-esteem … He had been really well supported, made a big fuss of,
did very well with his overall achievement, which was really acknowledged at his graduation … for a kid
that’s never fitted in anywhere … it really was a huge milestone for him … that actually I can achieve
and I can do better than my peers, I think that was the biggest thing for him … when he came out for us
there was just this big shift in his self-confidence and knowing of himself so much better … he came out
with some goals and things he really wanted to achieve. (SwA provider caseworker)
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
Strong leadership and teamwork ethos
The principle of effective teamwork runs through all aspects of the MAC residential programme, from
top-down leadership to the expectations placed on the young people. Teamwork is seen to underpin
the success of the current MAC leadership, the strong and consistent staff relationships, and the basis
of MAC activities for the young people.
CYF and NZDF leaders described the trusting and collaborative way they worked together, stating
how important it was to get the right staff in the lead roles both from CYF and the NZDF – staff who
were passionate about working with the young people, had a clear and shared purpose for what they
wanted to achieve, and who role-modelled the teamwork principle that underpinned the design of
many of the activities the young people were involved in.
We work really well as a team, we try and instil this in the young people – discipline, routine,
teamwork … teamwork inspires pro-social behaviours … (Residential staff member)
However, it has taken time to find a way for CYF and NZDF staff to work together. Initially, there was
some conflict, with one staff member stating ‘... previously it was unclear who was running the course’.
It was recognised that effective teamwork takes time, especially when staff are brought together from
different backgrounds, training disciplines and with different expectations. While the current team is
believed to be working well, there was acknowledgement that due to staff changes there would always
be times of adjustment and reforming as a team. As one residential staff member said: ‘some teams
have changed, it won’t be perfect all the time.’
It was noted by both CYF and NZDF residential staff members that the MAC programme is dependent
on getting the right staff into the right roles. Some staff questioned the use of secondees for short
periods as this was seen as working against the development of effective teams.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
36
Effective teamwork between CYF and NZDF is also believed to provide clear and consistent
expectations for the young people on the MAC programme. All staff are encouraged to join in activities
with the young people as part of role-modelling and to help build rapport. Staff described this as
helping to create an atmosphere in which anxiety is reduced, and certainty and safety support the
learning and development of the young people.
Young people who come into the MAC programme sometimes know each other from other residences
and can start to size each other up, or they or a member of their family might have a history of gang
affiliation. These kinds of barriers are addressed early on in the MAC programme through the
wilderness camp and group activities so that instead of working from a point of difference, they can
learn to work together as a team or group. This, in turn, breaks down tension and encourages prosocial behaviours. One interviewee described observing this during the ‘forming’ stage of the
programme; for example, hearing the young people say to each other ‘come on boys’, or ‘come on
brothers, lets’. One young person described the effect he observed:
you have to have teamwork or else nothing works … had to drop our gang colours … now I put
it aside … they’re all “the boys”
One aspect of teamwork was the use of group consequences for undesirable behaviour. Once a
young person has built trust and rapport with the others, the effect of group consequences is a large
deterrent to negative behaviour. Another aspect of the power of the group influence was the use of the
incentivised Behaviour Management System14 whereby the young people can rise or fall through
levels by demonstrating positive or negative behaviour. Those who reach a higher level influence their
peers to achieve similar reward and recognition. Each young person is given the responsibility for
having a day when they are the ‘Duty Young Person’. This gives them an opportunity to develop
leadership skills and requires the team to respect the leader’s authority.
Operational Issues
Some specific issues were identified as potentially hindering the impact of the MAC programme,
namely a need to:

determine the most suitable approach to the delivery of the criminogenic programme

improve the flow of information between TPW Youth Justice Residence and social workers, family
and/or mentors in the community

better integrate the components of the residential programme, and more clearly define the overall
goals and intended outcomes

overcome some of the drawbacks of delivering the MAC residential phase in only one location,
with the subsequent implications for transition back into their home community

determine why the costs of the MAC residential programme are substantially lower than originally
envisaged, and whether this will be the case in the future.
Determine the most suitable approach to the delivery of the criminogenic programme
The criminogenic programme was originally designed to address a number of risk factors associated
with offending behaviour. As shown in the following example, the criminogenic programme assists the
young people to examine different aspects of their lives and their behaviours to allow them to make
different choices when they return to the community (see Box 7).
14
See Annex 2.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
37
Box 7: Participating in the criminogenic programme – an overall assessment
Oscar has been a star in our course. He has shown great insight into not only his own situation, but also into
antisocial behaviour in general. He has contributed greatly to his group, opening up and offering up his thoughts
for discussion. He was slightly defensive in the beginning but he quickly warmed to the group once he
understood we were not there to convince him what to do with his life, but rather to give him strategies that he
can use if and when he chooses to. He has been receptive of all the concepts we have put to the group, even if it
isn’t something he agrees with, he has put his opinions to the side and heard us out and engaged in appropriate
questioning and debating of ideas. Oscar has shown us that he understands his offending and how he got into
that cycle, including the role of his peers, family, drugs and his attitude.
He has been somewhat hesitant to commit to making any changes, he has mentioned that this is all he knows
and it is possible he feels out of his depth and/or that it would be too drastic for him to change.
It is recommended that Oscar finds an activity or course that he feels comfortable and excited about doing but
that will also fit well with the views of his family [and] circle of friends. Oscar is unlikely to engage long-term in
anything that is too much of a shift from the norm for him or if those around him do not support it. Engaging in a
sports team and/or cultural group would be great for Oscar as he enjoys the company of others and would do
well in a team environment, surrounded by supportive people. Also Oscar, like the other boys, would benefit
greatly from engaging in something that he can be successful in as it [would] boost his self-esteem and help
build his confidence in his own abilities.
Oscar initially did well after leaving the residence but then he started reoffending. He has since been before the
District Court.
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
However, the evaluation identified a number of challenges facing the criminogenic programme.

The programme can go only so far in changing often entrenched behaviours. The residential
staff commented that a nine-week programme by itself cannot easily undo poor attitudes and
behaviours that have developed over the first 15 or 16 years of a person’s life. The criminogenic
programme, and the MAC programme as a whole, can only give the young person the tools to
change. As in the case of Oscar, it may take time, possibly years, for a young person to apply what
he has learnt on the programme.

The group nature of the criminogenic sessions may not be as effective as one-on-one
sessions. Some residential staff were concerned that the young people are expected to discuss
and reveal their personal thoughts and reflections in front of their peers, while at the same time
continue to interact with them outside of the group sessions. It was suggested that some young
people would be unlikely to want to reveal anything that would compromise their role as a peer. A
couple of staff said they thought the young people did not enjoy the ‘talking’ in the group sessions.
Added to this, the young people are not voluntarily attending the criminogenic sessions and
therefore some may not be as motivated to change as those participating voluntarily.

The criminogenic programme is not run at a suitable time of day. It is timetabled towards the
end of the school day, together with a number of other activities, when the young people are
thought to be tired, making it difficult to engage them in the intensive work of self-reflection and
discussion. CYRAS information suggests that only around half of the young people consistently
engaged in a positive manner with the criminogenic programme, with others showing both positive
and negative engagement at times. Only a few young people were believed to have struggled
consistently with the criminogenic programme, in part because of their inability to analyse their
offending behaviour.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
38

The criminogenic programme is now delivered by residential staff (also see Chapter 2). While
some of the staff interviewed saw this change as an opportunity to integrate some of the learning
from the criminogenic programme with the rest of the MAC residential programme, others had
concerns. Some reported being troubled by the use of residential staff to deliver the criminogenic
programme, at least without a trained therapist also being present. It was suggested that a
‘coerced’ therapeutic intervention with these young people runs the risk of being manipulated, with
the young people ‘playing the game’ and telling staff what they want to hear. It was suggested that
the staff performing the role of facilitator need to be experienced and have received in-depth
training for this particular client group.
Since the evaluation was undertaken, CYF national office report that to encourage the young people
to address the causes of their offending behaviour motivational interviewing will be introduced to
supplement the criminogenic programme. Motivational interviewing is defined as a “collaborative,
person-centered form of guiding to elicit and strengthen motivation for change”15 and has
demonstrated effectiveness with young people16. This change recognises that the criminogenic
programme alone could not achieve the desired outcomes in the time the young people were at the
MAC residence. However, there remains an issue around how a more robust criminogenic programme
can be delivered to this particular group of persistent/serious offenders. It may be that the nine-week
residential phase is too short for an effective programme to be delivered, and a community-based
programme may also be required once the young people leave residence.
Improving the flow of information between TPW and the community
Residential staff are currently not provided with any regular reports on the outcomes of the young
people graduating from the programme. Learning from what has gone well and not so well for the
young people back in the community could be useful information for those who deliver the residential
programme.
Ensuring that social workers, family and/or mentors understand what has happened in the residential
phase is important for transition planning and the successful reintegration of the young person into the
community. The level of contact between social workers and the residential staff varied. Some social
workers reported regular and frequent contact with the residential staff while others had very little (see
next chapter).
Staff need a better understanding of the components parts and how they fit together
The people working in the MAC residential programme did not always have a good understanding of
all components, what each component is working to achieve, and how they should fit together. For
example, most of the MAC floor staff interviewed for the evaluation were not able to comment on the
value of the criminogenic programme as they said they did not know what took place on this part of
the programme. Clearly, more could be done to ensure that all residential staff understand the value of
and buy-in to the criminogenic programme, particularly given that it is a critical part of the overall nineweek residential phase.
Location of the residential phase creates some challenges
Being based in Christchurch had both advantages and disadvantages. It was a chance for the young
people, most of whom were from areas outside Christchurch, to get away from the negative
distractions of their home environment. However, a number of interviewees highlighted drawbacks of
the location:
15
Miller and Rollnick, 2009, p. 137 in Austin, Williams and Kilgour (2011)
16
Refer to Anstiss, Polaschek, and Wilson (2011) and Austin, Williams and Kilgour (2011).
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
39

Engaging with peer groups or whānau, or dealing with the things that are happening in that
young person’s community was very difficult. Some residential staff reported there would be
benefits in making inroads here.

It is difficult for family members to visit, and the lack of contact is hard for some of the
young people to cope with. For example, one residential staff member commented: ‘On our last
MAC we had several young people who had nobody attend, not even a field social worker … that
was heartbreaking … one particular boy was so upset.’
While provision should be made by CYF regional offices to allow family members to have continual
engagement with the young people while in residence, including pre-graduation visits, MAC
residential staff appear to have differing views on the importance of maintaining contact with family
members for the young people. Some stressed the value of ongoing contact, through visits to TPW
and via phone, while others believe that this contact could be disruptive. One MAC residential staff
member said that ‘... families are often their biggest challenge’.

The distance from the young person’s home environment makes transition planning more
challenging (see next chapter).
It should be noted that these drawbacks are not isolated to the MAC programme. National residences
are located in a small number of geographical locations and consequently require some young people
and their family/whānau to travel.
The additional costs of the residential component of the MAC programme are
substantially lower than originally envisaged but it is unclear why
On average, the MAC programme costs $18,000 more per young person than for a standard SwR
order, which costs on average $63,000.17 The additional costs of the MAC programme relate primarily
to the residential phase of the programme and include recreational activities and programmes that
focus on key areas such as living skills, education, culture, therapeutic needs, criminogenic needs,
alcohol and other drugs, military activities, and extra residential personnel costs.18 Other costs
associated with the MAC programme are absorbed by CYF (eg infrastructure costs for TPW and other
programmes accessed by MAC participants that are available to all young people in residence or
under a Supervision order). Further work is required to determine why the MAC programme costs are
lower than anticipated and whether this will be the case in the future.
17 This figure is based on the average number of days served by past MAC graduates.
18
Ministry of Social Development (2012b).
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
40
6. Transition back into the community
SUMMARY

Some young people made a successful transition back to the community. The transition is
complex and in most cases there will be no single pathway that will work for every MAC
graduate. However any gains made from the residential environment needed to be
identified, retained and built on during the transition back into the community.

The development and successful implementation of a comprehensive plan to
appropriately manage and monitor the young person’s often complex transition is critical
to the overall effectiveness of the MAC programme.

Unfortunately the evaluation found a number of significant gaps or limitations in the
support currently provided to the young people after they leave TPW.

Suggestions for improvements include:
-
Reviewing whether young people should serve the remainder of their SwR order in
another residential unit. All staff and some of the young people interviewed for the
evaluation reported that doing so could erode some of the positive gains from the
MAC residential programme because other residential units did not offer the same
ethos and support as the MAC programme.
-
Clarifying how many of the pre-existing environmental and other risk factors that
influence offending behaviour can be addressed when the young people return to
the community. While these issues are not specific to MAC participants, they
influence the overall effectiveness of the programme. The evaluation raises a
number of fundamental questions about the design of the MAC programme. To
what extent does the MAC programme address all the main risk factors associated
with offending behaviour? If not being fully addressed, are the factors that are
being addressed sufficient to help the young people to change their offending
behaviour, and what else needs to happen?
-
Improving the establishment and maintenance of young people’s links to
education, training or employment – key factors in the young person’s successful
transition to independence. These links were difficult to establish and maintain for
a number of reasons.
-
More intensive supervision during the community phase of the MAC programme
than is normally provided. What this means needs clarifying as does the role of
social workers in providing that supervision.
-
Ensuring the young people receive the level of support they need from various
other professional sources (eg timely access to community-based programmes,
sufficient mentoring support, ensuring regional CYF offices are able to meet the
requirements of the Supervision order plans).
This chapter turns attention to the transition of the young people back into the community, highlighting
the complexities they encountered, and identifies a number of issues or gaps that may need further
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
41
consideration. The issues were highlighted during the qualitative interviews carried out for this
evaluation.
It should be noted that aside from the information collected in the transition phase interviews and the
reoffending analysis, details on how the young people were functioning in the community are patchy.
With improved information it might be possible to build a more comprehensive understanding of wider
social outcomes for the MAC graduates (such as whether they are in work and/or training,
participating in recreational or community activities, moderating or controlling their AOD misuse, and
so on). This information is essential to an understanding of how the MAC programme has helped the
young people to strengthen their resilience.
An overview of the intended transition back to the community
The development and successful implementation of a comprehensive plan for the young people when
they return to the community is crucial to the overall effectiveness of the MAC programme. Figure 8
summarises the process for transitioning back into the community.
Figure 8: The community phase
A plan for the Supervision
Order post release from
residence is developed
Social worker co-ordinates
comprehensive wraparound
support in the community for the
duration of the Supervision Order
Community Phase
Selection and referral
to the MAC
residential
programme of 40
most serious and
persistent youth
offenders
Young person
attends the MAC
residential
programme
Young person
engages in the MAC
residential
programme
Young person has
the attitude,
motivation and
skills not to
reoffend
The young
person makes
pro-social
choices in the
community
YP is living in a supportive
family environment
If required the YP is placed
with a community provider
Parenting support to the
YP is offered if needed
YP is engaged in education,
training or work
The young
person is
independent and
self-managing
YP has a key support
person in the community
YP is engaged with prosocial peers and activities
Mentor provides support
to the YP
YP receives AOD or mental
health services if required
When the young person finishes the nine-week MAC residential programme they must remain in
residence to serve out any remaining time in their SwR order. In around nine out of 10 cases, the
young people are released at their two-thirds sentence date, due to good behaviour and compliance
with the conditions of their order, with those remaining having to serve out their whole order.
When released from residence, each young person must serve a Supervision order of between six
and 12 months’ duration. The nature of the Supervision order is determined by a social work report
and plan developed while the young person is still in residence. The plan is developed by the site
social worker, usually in consultation with residential staff, the YJ social worker, the young person and
possibly members of his whānau. The plan will detail how the Supervision order is to be implemented,
the arrangements for the care and control of the young person and details of any programmes or
interventions that are to be provided. The intention is to provide more intensive wraparound support
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
42
than the norm for the young people as they make the often complex transition back into the
community.19 The young person’s YJ social worker oversees the transition.
Can a successful transition be achieved?
The transition is successful for some
Some young people do have a successful transition back into the community. Of the 35 young people
who had graduated from the MAC programme 12 or more months earlier, six did not reoffend. These
six all went to live in a supportive family environment that was different from where they had resided
before going on the programme. Five of the young people went to live with a family member other than
their mothers. These family members often lived in an area away from the influence of the young
person’s antisocial peers. One young person did return to live with his mother but he had a job that
took him away from his community and its negative influences for large periods of time. He also spent
time living with his girlfriend and her supportive family. All of these young people also had positive and
timely support from other adults such as a community-based programme provider, mentor or
community advocate.
Prior to participating in the MAC residential programme, these young people had characteristics
similar to many other participants (eg the absence of a positive male role model in their lives, and
difficulties dealing with anger), although their case notes indicate that before and during the MAC
residential phase most expressed real remorse and/or a willingness to change – which may not be
true of all MAC participants.
There are challenges to a successful transition
It is clear from the interviews with YJ social workers that the community-based aspect of the MAC
programme is not operating as intended. This is seen as putting at risk the good work carried out
during the nine-week residential programme and the positive changes social workers observed in the
young people on leaving the residence.
The transition process is complex for the young people, with no set pathway back into the community
on leaving TPW. There are numerous pitfalls awaiting them on their return. Some challenges for the
transition phase include:

completion of sentences in other CYF residential units may erode the benefits of the MAC
residential phase

ensuring that plans to transition the young person back into the community are realistic

achieving a phased transition that includes an appropriate level of support for the young person

addressing a lack of support in some family environments that the young people are returning to

overcoming difficulties finding and keeping young people in suitable education, training or
employment

getting the young people involved in pro-social activities such as recreational and sporting
activities or community work

supporting the young people to avoid negative peer influences and substance abuse, and take
ownership of their decisions and behaviour
19
Since July 2011, Supervision orders may involve the young people participating in a SwA-type programme and since MAC Seven (July
2012) they should have a mentor from the community assigned to them while at TPW and for the period of their Supervision order.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
43

determining the role and level of support mentors should provide

maintaining the appropriate level of contact with residential staff.
It can be noted that many of the issues highlighted above with the transition process are a challenge
for all young people leaving residence, as well as others transitioning back into the community from
other military-type programmes such as Limited Services Volunteer (LSV).
The example below highlights the nature of the challenges still faced by the young people after they
graduate the MAC programme and return to the community (see Box 8).
Box 8: A challenging transition
Travis reported that his experience of attending the MAC residential programme was positive. He found the staff
friendly and valued being away from his negative home environment. He reported that the MAC experience had
improved his self-confidence, self-discipline and ability to manage his anger. On transitioning back into the
community his mother noticed the positive change in his behaviour, commenting that he was more settled and
was thinking more of his family rather than just himself.
However, Travis still faced a number of challenges, including:

Substance misuse. His mother, mentor and social worker all commented that Travis’ misuse of legal highs
has been an ongoing challenge. After completing his AOD work and testing he began re-using legal highs.

Addressing the need to be fully engaged in pro-social activities in the community. When Travis came
out of the MAC residence he needed to join some structured activity or programme. His mentor indicated
that this took too long to achieve and that he needed a wraparound programme for four to six months to slot
into straight after the MAC residential phase.

Finding suitable employment or training. Finding suitable employment for Travis was a significant
challenge. Although two jobs were initially found for him, both of these jobs ended after a short time, for
differing reasons. Attempts were also made to line up training while he was on the MAC residential
programme. However, finding suitable courses close to his home proved to be difficult, and his poor literacy
skills remain a barrier.

Developing the life skills to handle challenges. When Travis was in work his mentor felt he did not have
the education and motivation to manage the money he earned. His mentor felt Travis needed more direct
assistance with motivation.

Providing sufficient mentoring. His social worker, his mentor, his mother and Travis himself all
commented that the amount of mentoring provided after the MAC residential phase was insufficient, with
Travis receiving only one hour per week.

Providing support to families. Although Travis’s mother was initially helped to improve her parenting
skills, she reverted to old patterns where she struggled with setting boundaries and enforcing
consequences. The social worker believes that more parenting support is needed and that this support
should be run in conjunction with courses that the young people are required to complete.
At the time of the interview, Travis was before the District Court facing a number of new charges.
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
44
Completion of sentences in other CYF residential units may erode the benefits of the MAC
residential phase
Some of the positive gains from the nine-week residential programme can be eroded when the young
person has to serve the remainder of their SwR order in another residential unit (see Box 9). The MAC
and non-MAC residential staff, NZDF staff, young people themselves who had been on SwR orders
prior to the MAC programme (not only in Christchurch), and field social workers all commented that it
was preferable to go on the MAC than attend other residential units. All staff interviewed for the
evaluation considered that sending young people to the other residential units to complete their SwR
orders is detrimental to what they had learned and experienced on the MAC residential programme.
The following quotes reflect this view:
As soon as they go to the other units it’s just bad news, it feeds into the negative side … they
can [try to] influence others [young people] but it soon wears out, then they get into trouble. It
can be the same as going into the community. We can’t change communities or families – we
take them out of the poo and then drop them back in it. (Residential staff member)
… one young person took to doing PT [physical training] and maintaining the standards on his
own … didn’t have the support … maintained for a couple of weeks but had a bad day and got
in trouble, was put in time out … (NZDF staff member)
Box 9: A difficult transition back to another residential unit
Tyrone’s sentence ran a couple of months longer than the MAC residential programme so he had to go back into
another residential unit prior to being released. His YJ social worker said that he was bored and started to “play
up”. The social worker sought to keep in daily contact with Tyrone, reminding him of the importance of behaving
well to ensure that he got his early release and found that it was difficult to see this happening to him after all his
gains on the MAC programme, where he had been a leader.
Tyrone also spoke about how hard it was being in the regular unit without his MAC peers, and that the other
young people and staff did not know what he had been through on the MAC programme and how he had really
looked up to the NZDF guys. Tyrone said:
It would be better to come out of MAC straight into the community because I went back into another unit
for two months, I started to get back into my old ways. Then I came up here, slowly started to get into
trouble started smoking and getting into fights …
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve anonymity.
All staff, from the leaders down, spoke about the MAC ethos as being distinct from other residential
units. This ethos is talked about in various ways such as a shared purpose, the structure, discipline,
routine and teamwork, boundaries, the shared leadership and influence of the NZDF, positive role
models, a shared understanding of the life skills programme, and so on. This can set the MAC
programme and staff apart from other CYF residential units, with one staff member commenting on the
difference:
There was a trial period where a couple of our MAC staff went over to the open units, but I
think the staff over there found our staff too intense. We meet a bit of resistance going into the
other units because we’re told not to bring our MAC ethos in there.
While the evaluation is focused on the MAC residential phase, this does raise questions about
whether it is appropriate to send MAC graduates to these units. CYF are now working closely with YJ
social workers to tailor the length of SwR orders to allow young people to leave the residence as soon
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
45
as possible after graduation (with the assumption they will be granted early release at their two-thirds
sentence date).
Making realistic plans to transition the young person back to the community
Plans to help young people transition back into the community are developed in the residence with
input from MAC residential and community staff. Most residential and community staff interviewed for
the evaluation felt they were able to contribute to the development of these plans either directly or
through providing feedback into the process. The challenges in transition planning include the
following.
Finding programmes or courses in the community that young people can participate in locally and in a
timely manner
For example, interviewees reported that there can be time delays between leaving residence after the
MAC residential programme and beginning a course identified as part of the plan. Similarly some
locations may not offer the programmes needed by a young person or there may be wait-lists to
access the programmes. These barriers can culminate in a young person’s return to the community
without anything to occupy him during the day or having his mental or AOD issues unaddressed. For
example, in one case a 17-year-old father with two young children was expected to take a full-time
course in another location as there were no other options available to him at home. A CYF staff
member commented that ‘when the young people come out they might need to wait two to three
months to get back into AOD.’ It is important that the transition plans make constructive use of any
time where young people are waiting to participate in programmes or courses.
Setting realistic expectations of the young people given the challenging environments many MAC
graduates return to
While staff are generally hopeful for the future of the MAC graduates, this is strongly tempered by the
need for realistic expectations. The reality is that many young people are going back into the
environments they came out of, and in which it can be challenging for them to maintain the new habits
they have learned. Staff consistently spoke of the MAC programme as ‘sowing a seed’, showing the
young people that there is another way to live life, and that there are other, more ‘healthy’ options to
explore. All staff spoke of the 16–17 years of deprivation experienced by many MAC young people
and keeping the expectations realistic about what could be achieved in the nine-week residential
programme. One staff member described it as a success if young people reoffended with lower tariff
offending or transitioned out of the justice system when they were aged 25 rather than 50. This
suggests that the programme provides an opportunity to change the path of potentially ‘life-course’
persistent offenders towards desistence.
The Christchurch-based residential staff developing a realistic transition plan for the young person who
typically comes from the North Island
Mechanisms are in place to facilitate planning at a distance (eg video or phone conferences, email).
Nevertheless it was suggested that if a young person lives in Christchurch it is easier to develop a
plan for transition back into the community. Where the young person was not from Christchurch the
development of the plan was more challenging as the residential staff had fewer contacts or possibly
limited knowledge of the region.
In the community, field social workers are juggling 16-17 other young people. Also in provinces
we only have one or two providers to utilise, unlike somewhere like Auckland, which may have
10 possible different providers. Maybe MAC staff need some realism. When the young people
come out they might need to wait two to three months to get back into AOD. (CYF staff
member)
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
46
Ensuring clear and continuous communication between residence and community case workers to
identify the transition needs and develop a realistic plan
This includes incorporating the young person’s learning interests and strengths identified during the
residential phase, and mapping out what is available for them when they transition back to the
community, to sustain any gains they have made. At the time of the evaluation:

Residential staff found it difficult to comment on the success of the transition planning as they
generally do not formally hear how the young people are doing once they leave the MAC
residential programme, unless the young person phones to keep in touch. Most staff said they
would like to receive some data or statistics on how well MAC graduates perform back in the
community. Information on what worked and what did not would assist with planning for future
MAC participants.

There was variability amongst YJ social workers in terms of their involvement with transition
planning during the MAC residential phase. Some social workers made efforts to attend the
transition meetings via video conference, but for others the timing did not always work out.
Concern was expressed about the impact on the young people when staff were not able to attend
these meetings. Nonetheless, all the YJ social workers interviewed for the evaluation tried to find
suitable options for the MAC participants for when they left the residence. In a couple of instances,
the young people did not feel that they were asked what they wanted during the plans for transition
back into the community.
Social workers – is the level of support provided sufficient?
The design of the MAC intervention indicated that the post-residential phase should be characterised
by more intensive supervision than normally occurs. The young person’s YJ social worker plays a
pivotal role in overseeing the transition back into the community (refer to Annex 2 for more detail).
Their role is to maintain regular contact with the young person, ensure that the conditions and
requirements of the Supervision order are being met, and support the young person to address any
issues that arise. As one residential staff member commented ‘a lot of it depends on the field social
worker around what plans they have for them on the outside’. However, the YJ social workers reported
that their supervision of the MAC participants back in the community was no different to supervision of
other young people leaving residence.
Examples were cited of social workers not following up promptly on young people failing to attend
education or training. Social workers faced challenges in providing more intensive support. For
example, whānau placements in isolated areas make it difficult for social workers to maintain support.
This raises some questions:

Should there be a more intensive plan than the norm for the Supervision order and/or more
intensive support from the social worker?

If more intensive support is required what should that support look like and what is the social
worker’s role in providing it?
What is the role of intensive community-based programmes in the transition process?
A common theme expressed by both YJ social workers and mentors was the need for an intensive
and structured programme, similar to the MAC residential programme but based in the community to
step the young people back into the community. Several suggestions were given for this, including the
ongoing involvement of the NZDF (which may take the form of phone call or a visit to the programme
every few weeks for a catch-up).
In some instances, young people returning to the community have been sent on additional intensive
community-based programmes usually reserved for young people sentenced to SwA orders, such as
the Christchurch Youth Development Programme (CYDP) and START Taranaki. These programmes
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
47
are believed to provide some of the young people with a more staged and supported transition back
into the community following the residential phase. In some cases, the continued follow-up support
from these programmes once a young person had completed the programme (such as from START
Taranaki staff) was also considered beneficial to him. However, to some extent this may reflect
deficiencies in the level of mentoring being provided to young people, which in a number of cases was
only one hour per week.
It was clear from the interviews (in Christchurch and Napier) that both CYDP and START Taranaki
played key roles in assisting the young people to transition back into the community, and had skilled
staff accustomed to working with high-risk young people. Their staff were available outside of business
hours, and the programme provided for individual and group sessions, physical fitness activities,
mentoring, and other relevant activities.
The following example shows how one MAC graduate went on to a SwA programme and was later
encouraged to move to a different home environment, although this arrangement did not last long (see
Box 10). Even with phased transitions through SwA programmes, MAC graduates may still have to
return to unsuitable home environments that can put at risk any gains achieved while on both the MAC
and the SwA programmes.
Box 10: Support in the community
Caleb transitioned from the MAC residential programme to START Taranaki, a SwA residential programme. His
social workers organised his placement on this 20-week programme in order to build on what he learned during
the MAC residential programme. They did not believe that Caleb would have completed this programme without
first going on MAC. Caleb said that he liked START Taranaki because it was similar to the MAC residential
programme, although he found the physical requirements harder there.
Once he had completed START Taranaki one of his social workers organised for Caleb to live with a relative
because his home environment was considered unsuitable. Caleb did not know the relative very well. Although
efforts were made to help Caleb to get to know the relative while on START, the arrangement broke down and
‘things turned to custard’. START Taranaki, who had a mentoring role with Caleb, assisted in getting him back
on track. Caleb later returned to his home town to live with his mother.
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
Some MAC participants did not transition out of residence into an intensive community-based
programme. This was due to issues such as location, their being turned down by the provider, the
young person not agreeing to participate in the programme, or such a programme not being part of the
planning for the young person’s transition back into the community.
In exploring how best to support young people transitioning from the MAC residential phase, the
evaluation raises a number of questions that need to be considered:

Is it cost-effective for a young person to transition from an intensive residential programme such as
the MAC residential programme to an intensive SwA programme that also has a significant cost?

In the community phase, is sending the young person on an additional programme to manage their
transition back into the community the only solution, or is there a need to also strengthen the
family’s and community’s resilience in supporting the young person?
Family environments are not always supportive and positive
We know that young people exposed to adverse family environments (eg family violence, inconsistent
or harsh parenting, criminal activity, substance misuse) are at greater risk of offending. If these
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
48
negative influences are left unaddressed, or no significant improvement is made, the risk of
reoffending to the young person following his return to the community is likely to remain high.
However, finding a supportive and positive home environment for the young people is an ongoing
challenge - not just for the MAC programme but all SwR orders.
Returning to supportive and positive home environments may not be possible for most MAC
graduates. For the 37 MAC participants examined in the CYRAS analysis, it would seem that the
majority (around seven out of ten) were able to return to live with willing family members such as a
parent, an aunt or uncle, or grandparents. However, community staff interviewed for the evaluation
commonly expressed concern that the young people were returning to their home environments with
the same negative influences they were exposed to prior to the MAC residential programme. This
included one or more of the following:

Inability to establish suitable boundaries on behaviour. In some cases the caregivers
struggled to cope with the young person’s behaviour such as breaching curfews or not following
house rules or the subsequent reoffending of the young people. This sometimes led to a change of
caregiver.

Family involvement in criminal activity. Several young people have parents and/or siblings who
have been in and out of the justice system. One young person who had been in CYF care since he
was very young was purposely relocated to a town a long way from his home town to distance
himself from these influences, but also because the community would not accept him back due to
the nature of his offending. One young person described the ever-present opportunities back in the
community to ‘get up to mischief’ and reoffend, and the constant vigilance necessary to avoid this.

Family violence. For example, one residential staff member commented:
For 17 years they’ve lived in crap environments. I had to take a young person home, it was two
in the afternoon, the father was (drunk), the mother was lying on the floor beaten up, the Police
were there, and I had to drop him off. I wanted to just keep him in the car and bring him back
but I couldn’t. (Residential staff member)

Substance misuse by family members. One young person’s mother was in recovery from
alcohol addiction and she was only able to provide a supportive and safe place for him as long as
she remained sober. Another young person who had been relocated had been contacted by his
mother who wanted to visit him and have him deal drugs in his new town. His YJ social worker
said:
[X] freaked out when he found his mother was coming, came up here [to CYF] and said
“Please don’t leave me alone with her, she’ll make me steal for her, she’ll make me do this and
this …”. He’s aware now of what his mum is and what she does to him.
Nevertheless, interviewees reported that the young people often want to return to their home and will
find a way to do this, even if it is against the advice of their social workers. One young person noted
that he had not been allowed to live with his mother in three years, and that if he was not allowed to
return to live with her, he would be more likely to reoffend.
If they don’t send me home, I know I’ll go to jail. My mum has always wanted me home these
fellas say “no”. They think I’ll make my little brothers offend. The plan is to get out and stay out,
but if I don’t go home to my mother, plans might change. (MAC participant)
One CYF staff member explained that listening to what the young people say and want can help with
the transition, and prevent resistance and anger.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
49
We might not want them at home, but at 12, 13 or 14 they vote with their feet and go home
anyway. So what is the best way we can work with that? Make their environment as safe as
possible, whilst giving them the skills to improve their own life. Obviously sometimes you can’t
approve of them being at home – but not in every case. When they turn 17 they are going to go
home anyway. So what do you do to make that the best transition possible?
A community caseworker who has extensive experience as a residential worker both on the MAC
programme and in other residential units expressed concern at what she had observed in young
people who had completed the MAC residential. She suggested that one solution would be to
establish a transitional community house for the young people rather than returning them to adverse
family environments:
Young people are built up so high on the MAC that the fall could be greater … the MAC boys
certainly do very well … however while they’re doing so well … the environment’s staying the
same, the family’s staying the same … I find that very difficult … if we don’t deal with the
environment and the family it’s just making a greater fall. I love getting boys off the MAC
because they’re strong, disciplined, we know they’ve done a really intensive programme and
they’re ready … but is the community ready? Until we have housing as a transition, which is
my hope one day … we’re going to have a problem. I ideally would love to see young people
who come off the MAC go into transitional housing before going back to their environments …
it’s another step, because it’s a great drop at the moment … it can be bigger than the boys in
normal residence …
Difficulties finding and keeping young people in suitable education, training or employment
As discussed in Chapter 3, achieving qualifications and/or finding employment are important protective
factors influencing the offending behaviour of young people. Lack of educational achievement, poor
life skills that affect their employability, and lack of motivation towards education, training and/or
employment are just some of the many reoffending risk factors that the MAC programme seeks to
address. However, these factors cannot be dealt with effectively in the nine-week residential
programme and there seem to be significant challenges to addressing them when the young people
transition back into the community. Box 11 sets out the challenges faced by one MAC graduate.
Box 11: Finding employment
There were many challenges to overcome in engaging Ray in full-time work. His grandmother worked part-time,
but Ray’s father has never been in paid employment due to mental health issues. The caseworker believed that
Ray did not have strong role models for employment.
Following the MAC residential programme, he was found a forestry industry job. The caseworker described him
as ‘adamant’ that he could do the job, but after a few days his employer phoned to say the Ray was not coping.
He was on high levels of medication at this stage and the staff where he worked were not equipped to deal with
someone with Ray’s background. His next two jobs also lasted for only a short time because he did not enjoy
them. Ray had also previously pulled out of LSV at short notice after everything had been arranged for him to
attend.
The caseworker questioned whether Ray wanted to work full-time or whether he was being pushed into it by the
adults working with him. Both his caseworker and the MAC coordinator were also of the opinion that Ray was
unable to hold down a full-time job at that time. Given his mental health issues, they believed that being on the
Sickness Benefit and doing some part-time work would be more realistic.
At the time of the interview, Ray was unemployed and receiving a benefit. Work and Income had suggested that
he again apply to attend LSV. Ray felt that he was now motivated to attend LSV, and that this in turn would
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
50
improve his motivation further and help him find work. However, both his caseworker and his mentor had
experienced ongoing challenges with him following through on verbal commitments and pulling out or becoming
evasive immediately prior to the start of a training programme:
… trying to get him into work … a lot of effort was put into that with very little result … at the last minute
it would all go pear-shaped … WINZ was pushing him towards a fishing course which was 22 weeks, a
mate of mine was a fisherman so we went to see him to talk about the realities of fishing … I took him
over to [see an employer] who would have been very happy to take him on a two-night sail as a trial … it
was all go go go … except when it came down to him having to get the few little things he needed … I
couldn’t get him to get them organised … I rang him on the Tuesday, the Thursday and the Friday …
then the skipper … phoned to say the sail time had been brought forward to two [in the morning, from
4am] … when I rang Ray he said “I can’t do that … I don’t go to bed till eleven o’clock and I won’t get
enough sleep” … so that was the end of that …” (Mentor)
Note: The names of the individuals have been changed to preserve confidentiality.
Several YJ social workers and mentors spoke about the lack of life skills, self-esteem and confidence
of the MAC young people and how this limited their options for education, training or employment.
When our kids leave the MAC they don’t come with an education, they don’t come with
training…they don’t come with any of those things that would allow them to move from the
MAC straight into the community into courses or apprenticeships … there needs to something
under the ... young people – pre-education, training, or employment … somewhere where they
can go and learn the basic skills. There could be an extension in the community … with a
provider … the kids are cut off from the people who gave them the good stuff on the MAC once
they leave. (CYF staff member)
They need a MAC outside … you’re trying to make them do the same thing but it’s really hard
because it’s not regimented … what they do [in the residential] is really good … they need the
other bit of the jigsaw puzzle outside … so I’m talking to my bosses about “hey I need a
programme”. (Mentor)
Most of the eight young people followed up in the transition interviews had not had straightforward
returns to the community. Several had tried different jobs but had not stayed, for various reasons such
as an inability to do what was required to hold down a full-time job or a poor job match. Others had
tried education or training courses but again did not complete them because of a lack of classroom
skills or because the course was not the right match for them. In smaller towns, a major challenge is
finding places on courses or finding work for the young people, with both options perceived to be
limited.
Several young people had been found jobs by their mentors or YJ social workers but did not have the
skills or maturity to cope with what was required to maintain employment. One YJ social worker and
mentor spoke about two young people they had found jobs for:
We got them both jobs and they were … a thousand-dollar-a-week jobs and they couldn’t
manage it … which kind of tells you they’re not up there mature-wise. (Mentor)
Instead you find them a job and everybody knows they won’t last and of course they fall over
but it’s just that they’re not really up there yet … don’t have the education and motivation to do
it. (Mentor)
Some young people expressed an interest in joining the military as a career option, and the LSV
programme was seen by some residence staff and social workers as a good stepping stone after the
MAC programme. LSV also holds an appeal to some young people as a continuation of the structure
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
51
and routine that they enjoyed while on the MAC residential programme. The main barrier for them was
having to wait until they reached the minimum age for a place on the LSV (17 years), by which time
some young people may have changed their minds.
Getting the young people involved in pro-social activities
Getting the young people involved in pro-social activities in the community can be difficult and in
smaller locations opportunities for this were often limited. Questions were also raised as to who should
pay for activities to help the young people maintain the good behaviours (eg fitness, motivation, etc)
that they learned on the residential programme, such as gym memberships, sporting-related fees or
equipment.
Unfortunately, the information held on CYRAS varies greatly about the extent to which MAC graduates
participated in education, training and employment, and in other pro-social activities. Any further
analysis is therefore not possible.
Avoiding negative peer influences and substance abuse
Prior to participating in the MAC programme, association with peers involved in antisocial activities
was a problem for almost all the young people. While five young people were recorded as having
stayed away from former friends and peers who were considered to have a negative influence on
them (with these five not reoffending at the time of writing this report), 12 were known to have
resumed such negative relationships (four of whom had reoffended with these associates). Three
young people were known to have joined or were trying to join a gang (all three have reoffended).
The pervasive availability of legal synthetic highs, such as Kronic and K2, as well as other drugs and
alcohol, made it difficult for many of the young people to resist when they returned to the community.
With regard to the latter, it is not clear from the programme documentation how much support for AOD
misuse is provided in the community and for how long.
Mentors – what is their role and what level of support should they provide?
From MAC Seven (July 2012), it was decided that all MAC young people should be allocated a
mentor, with regional CYF offices ensuring that resources are available to facilitate contact between
the mentor and the young people, including visits to TPW. Given the challenges faced by the young
people in moving back to their communities, and the lack of positive role models in their lives, it was
clear that mentors could perform an important role in supporting the young people’s transition and
building on the gains made during the residential phase. This support would help increase the young
people’s protective factors in the community and manage the risk factors and challenges. This was
recognised by all the YJ social workers, caseworkers and mentors interviewed for the evaluation.
However, the mentoring programme was not considered to be operating as effectively as it should. A
number of reasons for this were mentioned and these are outlined below.
Mentor awareness and understanding of MAC programme and their role could be improved
Several staff and young people were not aware of mentors and the role they should be performing.
The three mentors interviewed all knew that the NZDF was involved in the MAC programme. One
mentor said that he ‘naively thought it was a cadetship on the military base 24/7’. Other than that only
one mentor was able to describe some aspects of the programme: ‘army style, discipline, based
around the military, listening to authority, team building, consequences and boundaries, physically
demanding’. However, they did not refer to some of the more therapeutic elements of the programme
such as the criminogenic and AOD components or the wānanga. One mentor said it would be good to
have more information about what happened for the young person while on the MAC programme and
the key goals they could build on:
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
52
MAC is the biggest positive thing that has happened in their life, it would be good to be able to
refer back to things at MAC , for example, what they struggled with, when they got into trouble,
how they dealt with it, and how can we transfer that learning to home life.
Three of the four young people interviewed had mentors allocated to them. One mentor worked with
two young people from the same MAC residential programme but had worked with only one of them
prior to the MAC programme. The other two young people had not met their mentors prior to leaving
the MAC residence.
The skills of the mentor could be improved
Some YJ social workers felt that the mentors needed training on the dynamics around the family and
the environment, as well as drugs and alcohol use. A CYF staff member commented:
I think the Ministry needs to undertake training in that area for the community providers about
what mentoring looks like and I think that is our responsibility as it’s us that wants that service.
Mentors spoke about building trust so that they could speak to the young person firmly when required,
or so that the young person would feel they could call them when they were in trouble:
someone they can trust, someone they can talk to … and when they’re feeling like crap let us
know because quite often they feel lost, they’re in a system … we try and make sure they’re
connecting with … whoever they need to connect with. (Mentor)
The realities of working with MAC participants was challenging for mentors
The mentors described the motivational and supportive role they performed as being particularly
important in addressing the young people’s lack of initiative to undertake simple tasks for themselves:
there’s a lot of work because ... they’re not very motivated as such, they don’t have the skills ...
“oh I’ve gotta get to an A and D appointment” so you’ve got to do it for them until they seem to
get the hang of it. (Mentor)
They also talked about the amount of work required to support each young person to reach a goal and
the resulting satisfaction:
… He’s not a lad that ever really achieved … we did get [the young person] through his driver’s
licence and that was the best day ever it was brilliant … I was nearly in tears, he was nearly in
tears … he wanted to ring everyone … that was a mission, it was push push push push push,
but we got him through so at least he’s got his learners … (Mentor)
… you’ve got to make a real effort to try and keep him balanced … and there’s the Kronic [legal
high] … and you can’t throw him out, you gotta just keep starting again and he seems to come
to a stage where he hasn’t offended which I think is huge because he had quite a crime sheet
… (Mentor)
Few mentors are making time or being funded by CYF sites to visit the young people during the
residential programme
CYF staff identified resourcing as an ongoing issue, with regard to paying for the mentors to visit the
young people in residence to build a rapport and paying for mentoring services during the course of
the Supervision order. One MAC participant was provided with 28 hours of mentoring support per
week, as he was considered particularly vulnerable (eg was under CYF custody and had been
relocated to a new area). This was not the norm however, with the other MAC young people receiving
far fewer hours – commonly one hour a week. One CYF office said they were not in a position to pay
for mentors and so relied on a free mentoring programme, which provided only one hour a week. This
was seen as inadequate for what the role of a mentor requires:
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
53
We don’t have enough in our budget of “fee for service” money. What we’d like to see from
mentoring … someone who walks beside a young person, who supports them, who helps
them, who becomes their friend, their mate, their confidante … and that’s not what you get with
one hour a week. It isn’t just checking in with Johnny once a week and taking them to the gym.
(CYF staff member)
A mentor commented:
when he did get out he just looked so good, trim, his hair was done, he was focused … but it
took too long to get him into stuff … when he came out I only had him for mentoring … an hour
a week because CYF didn’t put him on a higher plan. (Mentor)
Another issue for mentors was the difficulty of being paid by the hour. In reality the role of a mentor
means that in times of crisis they are called upon, but are not paid for their additional time:
It was a few hours per week. It becomes bigger than the two hours – when a kid’s in strife you
can’t say “well I’m sorry I’m not getting paid for this”. (Mentor)
Managing the end of the mentoring relationship is a challenge.
Questions were also raised about what happens when the formal mentoring period ends. As one
mentor commented: ‘You can’t just chop them off … “oh sorry my contract’s finished”’.
At the time of writing this report, CYF were exploring options with NZDF and Blue Light Trust about
providing a more formal ‘step down’ for the young people after graduating from the residential
programme. MAC Ten and MAC Eleven graduates will have the opportunity to participate in the 12week Blue Light Trust PROSPER (Post Release Offender Support Programme to Encourage Reintegration) programme on release. The PROSPER programme includes a minimum of five hours per
week of mentoring support, and enrolment and participation in the Duke of Edinburgh programme.20
Maintaining contact with residential staff
Several staff, including YJ social workers and mentors, and a parent believed that it would be
beneficial for the young people to maintain contact with MAC residential staff, both CYF and NZDF,
after graduating. They observed the positive impact of the MAC residential programme on the young
people, particularly with regard to building positive relationships. Given the challenges that the young
people faced on returning to the community, they felt that it could provide good continuity with what
they learnt on the residential programme:
I would like to see a member of the MAC CYF staff or NZDF staff assigned to the young
person for six months after the MAC – to reinforce what they’ve learnt, particularly the army.
Some staff are doing it informally but it seems to be seen as blurring of the boundaries. The
kids have a very intense time going through all this stuff, then “see you, goodbye”. It would be
good to step them back in the community. (Caseworker)
… to be able to check in with the MAC camp staff throughout the mentoring … that’s where
[the young people’s] loyalty is … that’s probably the biggest thing in their lives so far and it’s
someone who’s got their trust … from my point of view, knowing what that young person has
20
In the PROSPER programme, a mentor will make contact with appropriate local CYF staff and the NZ Police to gain support for the
programme. On release, the mentor will develop a plan with the young person to continue their physical training, work with the family
(supporting the wider role of the social worker), and organise community service work as part of the Duke of Edinburgh award
programme. At the end of week 10, the young person travels to Auckland with the mentor to complete the final expedition with the NZ
Police search and rescue team over a two-day period. The programme concludes with a local graduation ceremony, with whānau/family
present.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
54
gone through at MAC camp, what did they struggle with … how did they deal with that … and
to transfer that learning to home life … that’s powerful. (Mentor)
Some young people also phoned to speak to staff at TPW, stating how positive this contact was for
them.
CYF have now put arrangements in place to facilitate ongoing contact with NZDF and MAC residential
staff via video conferencing, although it seems impractical that the level of engagement can be very
high. It is too early to report how well this is working or the extent to which it has been implemented.
For some of the MAC graduates, the fact that they continue to want contact with TPW staff may be a
signal that the young people have not built positive relationships with significant adults back in the
community. This may be due in part to the issues raised earlier in the report with the level of mentoring
support provided to MAC graduates in the past. Initiatives that CYF have introduced such as the
partnership with Blue Light Trust may ameliorate this to some extent.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
55
7. Conclusions
The evaluation, carried out between February and June 2013, examined early evidence regarding the
overall effectiveness of the MAC programme and identified what parts of the MAC programme were
working well or not so well.
Early reductions in reoffending achieved but can they be sustained?
Between October 2010 and July 2013, nine MAC residential programmes were run with a total of 80
young people starting the programme and 70 of these completing it. At the time of the evaluation, 35
of these 70 young people had been back in the community for at least 12 months to allow their
reoffending patterns to be meaningfully examined.
Reoffending data available to June 2013 suggest that the MAC programme is achieving some
promising results. Seventeen per cent (six) of 35 MAC graduates did not reoffend within 12 months of
being released from residence, and 83 and 74 per cent, respectively, reduced the frequency and/or
seriousness of their offending.
However, the small numbers who have completed the programme so far means that it’s too early to
say whether these results are any different from what might have been achieved by a standard SwR
order. The impact of the MAC programme on recidivism results will be formally tested through a robust
statistical analysis by the end of 2014.
Only partial information was available on how the young people succeeded, or not, on their return to
the community and very little if any information beyond the period of their Supervision order, other
than reoffending data. With improved information collection, it might be possible to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of how MAC graduates function in the community, not just in terms of
reoffending but also with regard to wider social outcomes (such as whether they are in work and/or
education/training, participating in recreational or community activities, and so on).
Nonetheless, given that the MAC programme seeks to target 40 of the most serious and persistent
young male offenders each year, it does appear to offer another option for the youth justice system to
address the offending behaviour for this specific group of young people. As discussed below, the
effectiveness of the MAC programme in reducing reoffending could be enhanced by providing more
support to the young people as they transition back into the community. This support would need to
build on the gains made by the nine-week residential programme and address any remaining risk
factors.
The typical MAC participant presents with an array of risk factors
The typical MAC participant is a 16-year-old Māori male from the North Island who presents with an
array of risk factors. He commonly lacks a positive male role model in his life, is known to the care and
protection arm of CYF, has disengaged from school at an early age, misuses alcohol and/or drugs and
associates with antisocial peers. Most such participants have one or more of the following: mental
health concerns, anger management issues, learning difficulties, cognitive problems, and issues from
past grief or trauma. In terms of their offending, typically they first came to the attention of the NZ
Police for offending at around age 12, have an average of around 30 prior offences, and were sent on
the MAC for offences such as aggravated robbery, burglary or serious assault.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
56
Aspects of the MAC programme are working well
The nine-week residential programme appears to be working well
The evaluation found that the MAC residential programme appears to be working well and improves
the attitudes and motivation of the participants to address their offending behaviour. The design of the
programme and commitment of the staff help the programme to ‘walk the talk’, and in so doing provide
the young people with a new perspective on life and new positive role models. Nevertheless, the
residential staff were aware that by itself the residential programme could not overcome all the risk
factors influencing the young people’s offending behaviour that had built up over the first 15 or 16
years of their lives, and that therefore there was no guarantee that the young people would not go on
to reoffend.
The involvement of the NZDF in the MAC programme was seen as critical to its success. The uniform
was respected by the young people. Using teamwork and a mix of structured and routine activities, the
NZDF staff helped break down barriers and promote the principles of equity, respect for authority, and
self-discipline.
Many MAC participants were able to achieve some qualifications while on the residential programme.
Within MACs Three to Eight, over half of the young people were able to achieve NCEA Level 1 credits,
including a small number who achieved some Level 2 credits. In addition, all of the participants in
MACs Three to Eight passed the Site Safe course, and almost all achieved their OSH Forklift
certification. Eleven young people also sat their learner licence tests while participating in the MACs.
Some young people have a successful transition back into the community
Around one in five young people graduating from the MAC programme have had clearly successful
transitions back into the community. They had not reoffended in over 12 months or had committed
only a single offence of a minor nature. These young people were often living in a different location to
before the MAC programme, with a supportive member of their wider family, and also had another
adult in their lives for support, such as a mentor.
Improvements to parts of the MAC programme
The critical areas on which to focus attention are the selection and referral process and the community
phase of the MAC programme. Some improvements could also be made to the residential phase.
The right people were not always being selected for the MAC programme
A decision to refer someone to the MAC programme is usually made at the FGC. Social workers, who
provide advice at the FGC about a young person’s suitability for the MAC programme, varied in their
adherence to the selection criteria. MAC participants could all be described as serious or persistent
offenders (but not necessarily both). MAC participants had committed an average of around 30 prior
offences and many are on the cusp of being transferred to the District Court (adult jurisdiction) for
sentencing.
The lack of alternatives to the MAC programme was a factor in some referrals. Some YJ social
workers recognised the potential benefits of the therapeutic aspects of the MAC programme and felt
that if their young person had to go to residence it was preferable to go on the MAC programme, even
if they did not meet all the criteria.
Moreover, the number of potential candidates for the MAC programme (eg young people with SwR
orders) is falling. CYF operational data shows SwR orders have fallen over 20 per cent in two years
which, in part, reflects a significant drop in recent years in the number of 14- to 16-year-olds
apprehended by the NZ Police – down by 18 per cent between 2009/10 and 2011/12. This could have
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
57
implications for the number and types of young people who are available to participate in future MAC
programmes.
How can the selection and referral process be improved?
Improving the selection and referral process is essential if the benefits of the programme are to be
fully realised and its limited resources used most wisely. The evaluation identified a number of issues
that would need to be addressed to strengthen the selection and referral process for the MAC
programme. These include the following:

Promoting increased awareness of the MAC programme among social workers, especially the
selection criteria, is particularly important given their role in the selection process.

Screening and assessment of young peoples’ needs and risks is required in all cases to ensure
that the young people receive the help they need to address their offending behaviour. The
evaluation has shown that 31 per cent of MAC participants did not have a completed TRAX
assessment – the main Youth Justice risk and assessment tool at the time of the evaluation. This
is clearly a risk for both the rehabilitation of the young people and for the overall effectiveness of
the programme on reducing reoffending. Without a full and accurate assessment, risk factors
associated with offending behaviour may not be identified and may be left unaddressed

Improving assessment and support around mental health issues is needed as some participants
who were found to have moderate to severe mental health issues that were not under control were
very disruptive to the delivery of the programme (with at least two young people having been
removed from past MAC programmes for this reason). Since the evaluation was undertaken. CYF
national office report an increased focus during the health assessments at the start of the MAC
programme on identifying young people with such issues.

Better alignment of sentences with the quarterly MAC commencement dates is needed, so that a
greater number of potential candidates can take part in the programme.

Some social workers expressed concern about the resourcing associated with sending someone
on the MAC programme. For example, the high costs of sending social workers, family members
and mentors to Christchurch from provincial North Island centres.
There are some operational issues which could hinder the impact of the nine-week
residential programme
The evaluation identified a need to determine the most suitable approach to the delivery of the
criminogenic programme (eg some residential staff raised issues around the programme now being
shorter and being delivered by residential staff). Since the evaluation was undertaken, CYF national
office report that to encourage young people to address the causes of their offending behaviour,
motivational interviewing will be introduced to supplement the criminogenic programme. However,
there remains an issue around how a more robust criminogenic programme can be delivered to this
particular group of persistent/serious offenders. It may be that the nine-week residential phase is too
short for an effective programme to be delivered, and a community-based programme may also be
required once the young people leave residence.
Other possible improvements include:

Improving the flow of information between TPW and social workers, family and mentors in the
community. (Residential staff are currently not provided with any regular reports on the outcomes
of the young people graduating from the programme. Information about what has gone well and
not so well for young people back in the community could be useful for those who deliver the
residential programme. Moreover, ensuring that social workers, family and mentors understand
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
58
what has happened to the young person during the residential phase will assist with their
reintegration into the community).

Better integration of the components of the residential programme, and clearer definition of the
overall goals and intended outcomes. (This includes ensuring that residential staff have a better
understanding of all the components of the residential programme, what each component is
working to achieve, and how they should fit together to achieve the overall objectives of the
programme.)

Working to overcome some of the drawbacks of delivering the MAC residential phase in only one
location (eg engagement with family/whānau not located in Christchurch). This has subsequent
implications for transition back into their home community.
Significant improvements are required for the community phase
When the MAC programme was developed, it was recognised that the often complex transition into
the community was critical and needed to be appropriately managed and monitored. Any gains made
from the residential environment needed to be identified, retained and built on during the transition.
Unfortunately, in contrast to the consistency of delivery and adherence to standards sought during the
nine-week residential programme, there are a number of significant gaps or limitations in the support
currently provided to the young people after they leave TPW. Suggestions for improvements include
the following:
Review whether young people should serve the remainder of their SwR order in another residential unit
All staff and some of the young people interviewed for the evaluation reported that doing so could
erode some of the positive gains from the MAC residential programme. While the evaluation is
focused on the MAC residential phase, this finding raises questions about whether it is appropriate to
send MAC graduates to these units. CYF are now working closely with YJ social workers to tailor the
length of SwR orders to allow young people to leave the residence as soon as possible after
graduation. We note that the length of SwR orders is set by judges in the Youth Court, taking other
factors into consideration such as the length of order being proportional to the seriousness of the
offending.
Provide greater clarity on how to address risk factors that influence offending behaviour
MAC participants often live complicated lives with multiple risk factors that influence their offending
behaviour. When the young people return to the community they face many of the pre-existing
environmental and other risk factors that influence offending behaviour. Many of the young people
struggled with them eg negative home and peer influences, ongoing AOD misuse, mental health
issues, anger management problems. While these issues are not specific to MAC participants, they
influence the overall effectiveness of the programme.
The MAC programme was designed to address multiple risk factors, and residential staff were positive
and hopeful for the young people. However, the programme documentation does not elaborate in
detail on how this is to be achieved. Moreover, several interviewees commented that even if working
very well, a nine-week residential programme alone cannot realistically resolve all the risk factors that
influence offending behaviour of young people that have built up over the first 15 or 16 years of their
lives.
CYF’s efforts to strengthen the phasing of the young people’s transition back into the community
through the use of community providers and SwA-type programmes, supports the view that the nineweek MAC residential programme is not a sufficient intervention by itself and that a longer, more
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
59
regimented and structured transition into the community needs to be developed for this group of
serious and persistent offenders.
It is still unclear whether the MAC programme is addressing, or can address, all of the main risk
factors associated with offending behaviour. Moreover, if not being fully addressed, are the factors that
are being addressed sufficient to help the young people change their offending behaviour, and what
else needs to happen? This raises fundamental questions as to the design and intent of the wider
MAC programme. For example, is sending the young person on an additional programme to manage
their transition back into the community the only solution, or is there a need to also strengthen the
family’s and community’s resilience in supporting the young person?
Undertake further work to establish and maintain young people’s links to education, training or
employment
The design of the MAC intervention stipulated that these links are expected to be more robust than
has previously been the case because they are key factors in the success of the young person’s
transition to independence. However these links were difficult to establish and maintain for a number
of reasons:

MAC graduates often had very low levels of educational achievement, which meant they did not
have the skills and knowledge required to participate in many existing education or training
courses. Some interviewees suggested there was a need for bridging courses.

The age or location of the young people made gaining a place on any course or finding work
challenging. For example, those living in smaller towns or in more remote locations had fewer
options.

The young people often did not have the life skills to cope with what was required to maintain
engagement in education, training or employment; they needed more support.
Undertake further work to ensure that the young people receive the more intensive supervision the
design of the MAC intervention intended
The YJ social workers, who oversee the transition back into the community, reported that their
supervision of the MAC participants back in the community was no different to supervision of other
young people leaving residence. This raises a number of questions:

Should there be a more intensive plan than the norm for the Supervision order and/or more
intensive support from the social worker?

If there is more intensive support required, what should that support look like, and what is the
social worker’s role in providing this?
Ensure the young people receive the level of support they need from various other professional sources
For example:

Additional counselling or other services may be required to address ongoing needs or risk factors.

Time needs to be used constructively where the supports required for the young people cannot be
provided in a timely manner (eg the date they are released from residence may not coincide
closely with course commencement dates, or there may be long waiting times for communitybased programmes such as AOD counselling).

The level and extent of the role performed by mentors is variable and sometimes insufficient to
meet the needs of the young person.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
60
It was reported that there can be significant costs for CYF sites associated with meeting the
requirements of the Supervision order plans (eg sending social workers, mentors and family to
Christchurch – particularly from provincial North Island centres, and provision of intensive mentoring).
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
61
References
Advisory Group on Conduct Problems (2013) Conduct Problems: Adolescent Report (forthcoming
publication).
Anstiss, B., Polaschek, D. & Wilson, M. (2011). A brief motivational interviewing intervention with
prisoners: when you lead a horse to water, can it drink for itself? Psychology, Crime & Law, 17:8, 689710.
Austin, K., Williams, M. & Kilgour, G. (2011). The Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing with
Offenders: An Outcome Evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 1. Retrieved
from http://www.psychology.org.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=1259.
Australian Institute of Criminology (2002). What works in reducing young people’s involvement in
crime?: Review of current literature on youth crime prevention, Australian Capital Territory
Government.
Dickie, M. (2011). Towards a better understanding of young people: The introduction of a new risk,
needs and strengths assessment tool. Social Work Now, Issue 47, 10–17. Retrieved from
http://www.cyf.govt.nz/documents/about-us/publications/social-work-now/social-work-now-47-april2011.pdf.
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. & Hayne, H. (2011). Childhood conduct problems. In Improving the
Transition – Reducing Social and Psychological Morbidity During Adolescence, A report from the
Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Auckland.
McLaren, K. L. (2000). Tough is not Enough – Getting Smart about Youth Crime. Ministry of Youth
Affairs, Wellington. Retrieved from http://www.myd.govt.nz/documents/resources-andreports/publications/tough-is-not-enough-2000-nz-.pdf.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2009). Ten Things that Motivational Interviewing Is Not. Behavioural and
Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37, 129-140. Retrieved from
https://www.nicotinedependenceclinic.com/English/teach/resources/Chronic%20Disease%20Preventio
n%20and%20Motivational%20Interv/10%20things%20MI%20is%20Not.pdf.
Ministry of Justice (2008). New Zealand Criminal Justice Sector: Outcomes Report, June 2008.
Wellington. Retrieved from http://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector/publications/globalpublications/n/new-zealand-criminal-justice-sector-outcomes-report-june-2008.
Ministry of Social Development (2012a). Fresh Start Reforms in Operation, a report released by the
Minister, Retrieved from http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/mediareleases/2012/fresh-start-reforms-in-operation.html.
Ministry of Social Development (2012b). Fresh Start Military-Style Camps, memorandum to Associate
Minister for Social Development, 7 December 2012.
Polaschek, C. (2013). What worked, what didn’t and what don’t we know? The New Zealand
experience using the ‘What Works’ literature as a guide to establishing an intensive programme for
serious young offenders, conference paper. Retrieved from
http://aic.gov.au/events/aic%20upcoming%20events/2013/youthjustice.html.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
62
The Werry Centre (2010). Evidence-Based Age-Appropriate Interventions – A Guide for Child and
Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) (2nd ed.) Auckland: The Werry Centre for Child and
Adolescent Mental Health Workforce Development. Retrieved from
http://www.werrycentre.org.nz/site_resources/library/Workforce_Development_Publications/FINAL_EB
P_Document_12_May_2010.pdf.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
63
Annex 1: Methodology
In 2010, the Centre for Social Research and Evaluation (CSRE)21 carried out process evaluations for
each of the two concept-test MACs which ended in November 2009 and June 2010. These
evaluations were used to inform programme development and implementation for the first (pilot) MAC
run under the Fresh Start Reforms in October 2010.
The MAC programme has now been running for over two years. This evaluation looks at whether the
MACs have been implemented as intended, and what is working well and not so well. The scope for
this evaluation includes:

What is the selection process for young people onto MAC?

Is the MAC programme being targeted correctly?

Is the MAC being delivered consistently?

Do the MAC components work well?

What are the implications (if any) of running the MAC in Christchurch only?

Are the young people engaging positively with the MAC programme?

Is there an impact on the young people when they have to stay in the residence following the
residential MAC component?

Is the transition and integration back into the community working well?
The evaluation uses several methods of data collection to address the evaluation questions. These
include:

residential phase interviews

transition phase interviews

CYRAS22 analysis

in-depth case studies

reoffending outcomes analysis.
Residential phase interviews
The evaluation draws on 23 interviews with key stakeholders involved in the delivery of the MAC
programme, three young people who were participating in MAC Nine, and a few non-MAC TPW staff.
Interviews took place on 26-27 March 2013 at TPW.
The MAC-related stakeholders interviewed included: MAC staff (both TPW and NZDF), TPW case
managers, the MAC co-ordinator, Kingslea School staff, the nurse, the employment coordinator,
people involved in the delivery of the Criminogenic, Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) counselling and
wānanga programmes, current MAC participants and mentors.
21
Renamed the Knowledge & Insights Group on 1 July 2013.
22
CYRAS is the Child, Youth, Residences and Adoption System database and case management recording system managed by MSD.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
64
The interviews sought to capture information on how the MAC is being carried out and what is working
well and not working so well.
Transition phase interviews
CSRE carried out a total of 20 interviews in May 2013 in Napier, Blenheim and Christchurch. These
focussed on information in relation to eight previous MAC participants.
Four interviews took place with previous MAC participants (four others were not available for interview
at the time of the fieldwork), seven with Youth Justice social workers (one of which also included the
young person’s Care and Protection social worker), three with mentors, two with staff from a SwA
provider, one with a parent, one with a Youth Justice supervisor, one with a MAC programme provider,
and one interview with three TPW staff in relation to the young people of interest.
The interviews with the MAC participants captured information about what they liked and did not like
about the MAC programme, how the MAC was different from other residences they had experienced,
their plans for when they left residence, how things had gone since they left the residence, and their
suggestions for improvements.
Interviews with social workers captured information on their knowledge about the MAC programme,
what types of young people are suitable and unsuitable, their roles while the young person is in
residence and after they have left, the changes they have seen in the young people after completing
the MAC residential phase, how things have gone for the young people back in the community, and
their suggestions for improving the MAC programme.
Mentors and the SwA provider staff were asked about their roles with the young people, their
knowledge about the MAC, differences between MAC young people and those from other
programmes, the level and nature of contact with the young person, the challenges faced, and what
worked well, and suggestions for improvement.
CYRAS analysis
While the transition phase interviews provided us with detailed information on eight MAC participants,
we were interested in finding out as much as possible about a larger group of participants in relation to
issues such as:

the background characteristics of MAC participants

the level of engagement and the young person’s behaviour while taking part in the MAC
residential programme

their transition back into the community (eg did they engage in employment, education or training;
did they have access to specialty programmes, a mentor, a stable and safe place to live, and
constructive leisure activities)

some of the key enablers and barriers to reduce reoffending.
For this reason, an analysis of information contained in CYRAS was undertaken for 37 participants
from MACs Four to Eight inclusive. Key documents (eg Social Work Reports, Implementation Plans,
Effectiveness Reports and Early Release Reports), case notes, residential placement records, and
summaries from assessment and screening tools were examined.
A framework for capturing and grouping information was developed in Excel, and detailed information
was captured in relation to the pre-MAC period, the nine-week residential phase, and the post-release
period when the young person was subject to a Supervision order.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
65
Following this, the key factors in each of these three periods were identified and information was
summarised for each person in relation to these factors. For example, we captured whether the young
people were identified as having AOD issues prior to commencing the MAC programme and how they
reportedly engaged with the AOD counselling while in residence.
In-depth case studies
In-depth case studies were carried out in relation to four previous MAC participants. These studies
combined information from the transition phase interviews and the CYRAS analysis. Information was
also collected in relation to four other MAC participants, but the young people themselves were not
available at the time of the interviews.
Criteria for case study selection were: that the young person’s transition to the community appeared to
have gone well to date – either from what we could learn from CYRAS or from feedback given from
MAC staff during the residential phase interviews – and that the young person had a variety of risk-ofrecidivism scores and a variety of total prior offences. Nine young people were identified within three
CYF sites, so these sites were chosen to form the basis for both the transition phase interviews and
the case studies.
Interviews took place with the MAC participants and people in their key networks, including family,
mentors, Youth Justice social workers, community providers, and intervention providers (eg alcohol
and drug treatment providers). Talking to this range of people provided a variety of perspectives on
how the MAC programme was being delivered and what significance it has had to date in supporting
or inhibiting change for these young people.
The case studies aimed to identify common issues in relation to how the MAC programme made a
difference. They considered issues around the changes the MAC residential programme brought
about, how benefits were or were not sustained, why the young person chose a certain path, access
to programmes and resources, and their ability to leave their old life behind (such as antisocial friends
and gangs).
Key questions included:

To what extent was the MAC programme effective in terms of reducing reoffending and achieving
other intended MAC outcomes?

Who did the MAC programme work best for, and who was less successful going through the
MAC?

What were the key barriers and enablers to effectiveness?
In order to protect the identity of individuals involved in the case studies, throughout the report
pseudonyms have been used for the young people. Case study information is presented in text boxes
to highlight particular points or issues.
Reoffending outcomes analysis
NZ Police provided offending data for MAC participants up to mid-June 2013. Offence occurrence data
represents a history of contact with NZ Police where it is believed that an offence took place. An
offence occurrence does not necessarily result in a charge being laid in court or imply that the offence
has been formally proven in any way. However, given a large proportion of offences are diverted from
prosecution, offence occurrences provide a more consistent measure of offending patterns than court
outcomes data for young people.
These data were used to calculate reoffending rates for MAC participants six months and 12 months
after release from the residence. The analysis is set out in Chapter 2 of this report.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
66
Only 35 MAC participants23 have completed their SwR order and been back in the community for 12
months or more and as such, the quantitative analysis should be regarded as indicative and treated
with caution.
Analysis
Following both the residential phase interviews and the transition phase interviews, the information
gathered was reviewed by an initial group workshop where the interviewers identified the key themes
from the fieldwork. This was followed by a detailed analysis of the notes and recordings of each set of
interviews, identifying in more detail the nature of these themes in relation to the goals of the
evaluation. Both analyses were then written up into findings documents that were reviewed by the
wider evaluation team, which included representatives from MSD youth policy and the CYF youth
justice operations team.
Findings from the CYRAS analysis were also presented and discussed in an analysis workshop and
areas for further investigation were identified, as were the ways in which this information would be
used in the evaluation report.
Wherever possible, information included in the evaluation report was confirmed across more than one
source of data to add robustness to the analysis.
23
The 35 participants come from MAC One and MACs Three to Five inclusive.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
67
Annex 2: What does the MAC
programme look like?
The MAC programme was designed to provide intensive wraparound support during the nine-week
MAC residential phase and throughout the transition back into the community, with each young person
being placed on a Supervision order for a period of six to 12 months.
The underlying rationale for the MAC programme
In designing the MAC programme policy staff drew on available international literature in terms of
‘what works’ with serious and persistent young offenders and, specifically, military-style activity
camps.24 It is widely accepted in the literature that traditional ‘boot camps’ do not work (ie are not
effective interventions for reducing recidivism among adults and young people) and in some instances
can exacerbate offending behaviour (AGCP, 2013). 25
The broad design of the MAC programme in New Zealand sought to limit the extent of the military
component, as compared with similar programmes overseas. Many jurisdictions that previously ran
traditional ‘boot camps’ have ceased these types of programmes in favour of more comprehensive,
wraparound support for young people in residential custody and as they transition back into the
community, and which may or may not incorporate military-style or physical activity components.
Where young people are sentenced to residential custody, the Australian Institute of Criminology
recommended that programmes incorporate a number of set components to increase successful
outcomes for young people, including:

thorough assessment and ongoing monitoring of participants to assess their capability to access
and participate in the most appropriate support services

multi-modal treatments with a cognitive-behavioural orientation addressing specific criminogenic
needs (eg attitudes that support offending, peer groups, family problems, drug and alcohol use,
anger and violence problems)

meaningful and substantial contact between participants and treatment personnel

equal focus on the resettlement and care of the young person after they leave residential custody.
Addressing risk and protective factors associated with youth offending
For interventions such as the MAC programme to work they need to address the underlying causes of
offending. Research has identified well-established risk and protective factors for youth offending at
the individual, family, school and community level (Figure 3 earlier). Evidence indicates that
programmes:

need to address many risk factors, as the more criminogenic needs that are addressed
systematically in one intervention, the greater the effect
24
Australian Institute of Criminology (2002).
25
For more detail, see ‘What works in reducing young people’s involvement in crime?, Review of current literature on youth crime
prevention’, Australian Institute of Crime, 2003, Canberra.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
68

work best where they work across the social system of young people (family, school, peers and
their community)

should incorporate an increase in educational attainment, enhancement of labour market
prospects, and support for the offender’s effective reintegration into the community

are more effective in positively altering thinking patterns where they include components linking
offending behaviour to deficiencies in thought processes, problem-solving and decision-making
abilities

need to have clear aims and objectives, and be well structured and focused in their approach

must have well-trained, committed and enthusiastic workers with ownership of the programme

should function consistently and in the way that they were designed and intended to be run.
The MAC programme was designed to address multiple risk factors that can influence the offending
behaviour of young people. The intention was for the MAC programme to focus equally on both the
residential and community parts of the programme, with a managed transition between the two.
Throughout both the residential and community phases, the MAC programme seeks to incorporate a
comprehensive range of rehabilitative and reintegrative services and programmes, including:

living skills, which aim to teach the young person to manage their time effectively, improve basic
life skills, provide routine and structure, and build confidence and the ability to self-manage

education, which aims to promote a positive attitude towards education, knowledge, and
motivation; enhance the ability to learn, follow instructions and cooperate with others; and build a
foundation for future long-term economic independence

culture, which allows the young person to increase cultural pride, self-awareness, a sense of
ethnic identity, and knowledge of cultural concepts that reinforce a pro-social lifestyle

therapeutic (criminogenic) programmes that include individual casework, incentive rewards, group
rehabilitation, family intervention and living skills

alcohol and other drug counselling, which aims to enhance awareness of the harmful effects of
alcohol and other drugs, reduce use and abuse, and provide treatment for those identified as being
dependent on alcohol and/or drugs

teamwork, where young people complete daily drills to help build teamwork abilities and assist
each young person to develop self-discipline, concentration, obedience and the ability to follow
instructions

supported transition back into the community, with the aim of consolidating and strengthening the
impact of the residential phase of the MAC programme by addressing any continuing risks and
needs, and assisting the young person to engage in employment, education and training.
Components of the MAC programme
Supervision with Residence order
To be selected for the MAC programme, a young person first needs to be sentenced to a SwR order.
During his time in another residential unit (eg before or after the MAC residential), the young person is
supposed to have a structured routine, including education, fitness and wellbeing, a focus on
reintegration back into the community and, where required, rehabilitation and counselling support to
strengthen his living skills. While this should be similar to the support provided during the MAC
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
69
residential phase, although not as intensive or as targeted to address the underlying causes of
offending, evidence collected as part of this evaluation raises questions about the level and nature of
support provided to young people in non-MAC residential units (see Chapter 5).
Young people are entitled to early release from a SwR order if the Youth Court is satisfied with their
behaviour and compliance while on the MAC programme (or in residence). When a young person is
granted early release, they will only serve approximately two-thirds of their SwR order. Therefore, the
actual duration of a SwR order may vary from two to six months.
Table A1: Four highest tariffs available to the Youth Court when charges against a young
person are proven (from most to least restrictive)
Type of tariff
Description
Transfer to the
District Court
Enter a conviction and order that the young person be brought before a District Court for
sentence or decision. In the District Court the young person can receive any sentence
available to the court, including imprisonment.
Supervision with
Residence order
A SwR order places the young person in the custody of CYF where they will reside in a youth
justice residence for the period ordered by the court. If the young person behaves well and
does not abscond or commit further offences, they may be released early from the residence
(usually after serving approximately two-thirds of the order).
SwR orders can be made for a period of between three and six months, and must be directly
followed by a Supervision order of between six and 12 months. Via a Supervision order, the
Youth Court can also order a young person to attend weekday, evening and/or weekend
activities, or a programme set by a supervisor, and to reside at a specified address.
Supervision with
Activity order
A SwA order requires the young person to attend weekday, evening and/or weekend
activities, or a programme set by a supervisor. It is the highest community-based tariff
available in the Youth Court, and is targeted at young people who have committed serious
offences. SwA programmes provide individualised and intensive support, positive guidance,
encouragement, opportunity and challenge to the young people in order to decrease their
likelihood of reoffending.
SwA orders can be made for a period of three to six months, and may be directly followed by
a Supervision order of three to six months.
Supervision order
A Supervision order places the young person under the supervision of a Youth Justice social
worker for a period of up to six months. Such an order will include a number of basic
conditions such as regular reporting to the social worker, living where directed, going to work,
education or training as directed, and so on. Further conditions may be imposed where the
court believes these might help to reduce the likelihood of further offending, such as requiring
the young person to undergo individual or group therapy.
MAC residential phase
The residential phase of the MAC programme includes a one-week Wilderness Camp and an eightweek residence-based component that consists of structured daily routines and scheduled
programmes and activities. The residential phase is run four times per year, each with up to 10 young
people participating in the programme, and is based at TPW because of its proximity to the Burnham
Military Camp where the NZDF Limited Service Volunteers (LSV) life skills group, the specialists who
work with young people, is based.
The residential programme has three distinct parts, commonly known by staff as ‘Storming, Forming,
and Norming’:

Storming (the first three weeks) – this part involves getting the young people motivated and into a
routine, breaking down barriers between them, and meeting and building trust with the staff
(including residence, school and NZDF staff and programme providers) and other young people.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
70
The standards and expectations of the programme are explained so that the young people
understand the reasons behind these expectations. Various assessments are also undertaken (eg
health and educational ability).

Forming (weeks four to six) – this involves a lot of group activity, which aims to break down
barriers between the young people and help them learn to work as a team.

Norming (the final three weeks) – this part seeks to prepare the young people for leaving the MAC
residential programme. A plan is produced that sets out how the young person will be helped to
transition successfully back into the community and to build on what he has learnt while in
residence.
The young people are expected to follow a strict and full daily schedule that seeks to address many
aspects of their offending behaviour. The day-to-day residential programme consists of a structured
routine that starts with getting up at 6.30am, followed by a range of activities and duties. These include
drills, off-site activities, school, physical training, criminogenic group therapy, one-to-one drug and
alcohol counselling, wānanga, life skills, and chores. The programme is deliberately designed to
minimise free time, keeping the young people focused and occupied, and allowing little time for
negative talk and bad behaviour. A combination of CYF and NZDF staff, and external or community
providers, are used to deliver support and activities to the young people.
All the young men receive a health assessment in the first week of the residential programme. The
majority have some level of physical health concerns, mostly because of neglect or unmet health
needs. Many MAC participants present with some mental health issues, but there is no detailed
information as to how these are assessed and managed while in the residence and as they transition
back into the community.
Transition back into the community (on a Supervision order)
The community phase of the MAC programme should include a tailored programme of support for the
young person. The length and type of supervision activities are determined on a case-by-case basis,
and are intended to consolidate and strengthen the impact of the residential phase of the MAC
programme by addressing any continuing risks and needs.
While a young person is in residence the residential case leader, in consultation with the Youth Justice
social worker (YJ social worker), will organise a pre-release planning meeting no later than two weeks
prior to the early-release hearing date. If the young person is not granted early release, another prerelease planning meeting will be organised no later than two weeks prior to the final release date.
The YJ social worker will facilitate the transition planning component of the pre-release meeting. The
meeting will take into consideration the views and opinions of the residential staff and other key
agencies that have provided services or are to provide services (eg Work and Income, AOD treatment
providers) and appropriate social service and community providers. The young person will also be
included in the pre-release meetings wherever possible and their views taken into consideration when
developing plans for transition back into the community. The views of family/whānau, any victims, and
the NZ Police, and the Family Group Conference plan must be considered as well as information from
TRAX assessments,26 Substance and Choice scale (SACS) screens, Kessler, Suicide (SKS) screens,
health and education assessments, and residential assessments and other activities undertaken while
in residence.
26
See Annex 3.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
71
The plan for transitioning the young person back into the community will be incorporated into the YJ
social workers’ s334 and s335 report and plan, which sets out the level and range of support needed
to assist the young person to return successfully to the community, as well as the expectations and/or
requirements placed on the young person. More specifically, the plan will identify what interventions
are required to support the young person and state where the young person will reside, how
criminogenic risks can be minimised, and who will be the key person to support the young person.
Once the social work report and plan are lodged, a Youth Court Judge will then make a Supervision
order based on the information provided. The young person will transition back into the community on
his Supervision order, for a period of six to 12 months.
The development and effective implementation of the plan to transition the young person back into the
community is therefore a critical component of the overall MAC programme. For this reason, this
evaluation targeted the transition phase of the MAC programme, undertaking a range of interviews
with MAC participants and professionals involved in the transition process.
The core elements of the MAC residential phase
The residential programme is structured around a number of core components, including the role of
the NZDF, criminogenic group therapy, one-to-one AOD counselling (delivered by Drug-ARM), the
school and vocational training, and the wānanga programme. Each of these is discussed in turn
below.
CYRAS information is used to show how the young people behaved on and engaged with the MAC
programme. This information was captured from Early Release reports prepared by the TPW case
leader and/or from Effectiveness Reports on the SwR order prepared by the YJ social worker.
Role of NZDF and wilderness camp
At any one time, six NZDF staff from their Youth Development Unit work on the MAC programme. A
minimum of one NZDF staff member is rostered on each shift to ensure the overall military themes and
concepts are consistently applied. Effectively the NZDF places the young people in a military-type
environment by applying engagement skills, setting clear expectations around behaviour, treating the
young people with respect and encouraging them to take responsibility for their actions. The NZDF
bring their experience in building confidence, resilience and self-discipline through their life skills
programme, and provide positive role models for the young people. As one NZDF staff member said:
… [NZDF] teaches them to stand up straight, pride, teamwork, you know, hey, we can listen to
someone else and it doesn’t take away from their mana … I can let someone else lead me in a
good way. (NZDF staff member)
For example, the young people are expected to wear a uniform and to meet military standards of
tidiness and cleanliness with regard to themselves and their living spaces. During the MAC
programme, the young people visit Burnham Military Camp to participate in activities such as the
confidence course and high ropes, which help them to face their fears and to develop resilience
strategies.
The second week of the residential programme involves a Wilderness Camp run by NZDF staff, which
is held offsite at a campsite at Lake Taylor. NZDF personnel, supervised by CYF residential social
workers, build the group culture that is essential to the MAC programme. The camp is designed to
allow the young people to build pro-social relationships with staff, develop trust and a sense of
achievement, build an ethos of teamwork and learn how to cooperate with others. In addition, the
camp focuses on helping the young people to tolerate adversity and take responsibility for their own
behaviour.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
72
The criminogenic programme
The criminogenic programme was designed to help the young people to manage their emotional
reactions and make better choices in order to reduce the frequency and severity of their reoffending.
Specifically, offending pathways are explored and identified, and strategies to reduce risk are
implemented. Group sessions are held weekly and each young person is expected to contribute to
discussions and activities. These sessions emphasise identifying and understanding elements within
offending that include offence-mapping and patterns, how decisions and choices affect offending, and
high-risk situations. The outcomes of these sessions for each young person are shared with other
professionals in weekly summaries. Further work is undertaken in individual clinical casework sessions
with the case leader.
Over the course of MACs One to Ten, the delivery of the criminogenic programme changed. Hall
McMaster & Associates Limited, a group of clinical professionals, designed and ran the criminogenic
programme for just over one year (to September 2012). More recently, the criminogenic programme
was delivered by two MAC residential care team staff. The two care team members have been trained
by Hall McMaster & Associates and have now completed three MAC criminogenic programmes as
facilitators. The criminogenic programme has also been reduced to 12 group sessions, from the initial
18-20 sessions. At the time of the evaluation there was no programme documentation that explained
why these changes to the criminogenic programme were made, whether any further changes were
proposed, and what impact, if any, is anticipated to the overall outcomes of the MAC programme.
AOD counselling
The use of alcohol and other drugs is a key risk factor behind offending behaviour. The MAC
programme has sought to address this from the start by providing AOD counselling, via the DrugARM, through one-on-one sessions with the young people. It is believed that the young people will
more readily open up about AOD issues in one-to-one sessions, rather than in a group setting as
above. This seems to be supported by the reports in CYRAS that show that most of the young people
engage positively with the one-to-one AOD counselling.
The number of sessions and content of each session is varied for the young people, taking into
account any previous AOD counselling, prior AOD education knowledge, current motivational state,
level of engagement and level of cognitive functioning. Educational material on cannabis, alcohol and
general AOD abuse/dependency is presented, while specific information about other drugs is
presented where appropriate. In addition, the young people are guided through a “values elicitation”
exercise where they are encouraged to identify their priorities in life. They then explore the factors that
would enhance their priorities and, conversely, identify factors that would compromise them, such as
AOD misuse, crime, anger, and so on. In most cases, relapse prevention strategies are also
discussed, which is pertinent to an individual’s risk factors for AOD problems and offending.
The vast majority of the young people present with AOD issues before starting the MAC programme.
While in residence and as they transition back into the community, AOD counselling is an important
part of the toolkit to address offending behaviour. Unfortunately, on their return to the community,
many young people relapse in their use of alcohol and other drugs, particularly with legal highs such
as Kronic.
The school and vocational training
The school and vocational programme seeks to build a foundation for longer-term economic
independence by helping the young people to transition successfully to mainstream schooling,
vocational training and/or employment.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
73
MAC participants attend school
Kingslea School is a special, composite, decile 1 school delivering education within CYF residences
throughout New Zealand. The young people on the MAC programme attend school Monday to Friday.
Three hours of the school day is spent in the classroom in the Rakaia Unit. The remainder of school
time is spread between Physical Education and the Options Block, which delivers carving, audio
engineering/media studies and hard materials/art. Within the classroom, the MAC students have a
daily focus on literacy, mathematics and digital technology, with weekly periods of health, Te Reo
Māori, careers and social studies.
The school runs individualised programmes for achieving NCEA credits to get the young people into
specific courses or to finish a programme that they may have started. The NCEA credits are usually at
level one but occasionally at level two. Some learners at Year 11 and 12 may concentrate almost
entirely on NCEA during their course.
More broadly, the school seeks to motivate the young people towards education and enhance their
ability to learn. The teachers undertake extensive testing with the young people in numeracy, reading
and writing at the beginning and end of the residential phase. It is recognised that most of the young
people will have had disruptions to their schooling and many are operating at a year 7–9 level (when
they should be at year 10–12), so the school focuses particularly on literacy, numeracy and
measurement. Often remedial work is built into the education programme to address identified gaps in
knowledge.
Vocational training for MAC participants
There is also a strong vocational input to the programme and a focus on job search skills in
conjunction with the employment coordinator.
We teach them to email so they can attach a CV … they don’t have any kind of computers,
they don’t have computers in their homes … a lot of kids out there are doing Facebook and
have iPhones … well these guys don’t even have cellphones, particularly the boys from way up
north … I don’t think they even have broadband. For them, so much is done digitally …
websites … even getting them NZQA numbers … you have to log on, it’s not sent out on paper
… I had a boy who didn’t know how to turn a computer on … now he’s done a really good
PowerPoint. (School staff member)
The group work sessions tend to be more trade-based. Career assessments are carried out for each
young person, which helps to identify what the young people are interested in. The employment
coordinator works closely with the school as well as runs workshops on different aspects of preparing
a job application. The employment coordinator makes links with training establishments that are
believed to align with the young peoples’ interests and abilities. For example, one young person
attended a local cookery training course for two days a week, while others have applied to the LSV
programme.27
Wānanga programme
Given that the lack of cultural pride and a positive cultural identity is identified as a risk factor for some
youth offenders, the MAC programme offers a Māori culturally-based programme. As discussed in the
report (see Chapter 3), Māori make up 60 per cent of MAC participants and Māori are overrepresented throughout the justice system.
27
LSV is a six-week hands-on motivational and training programme for young people run by NZDF on behalf of Work and Income.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
74
The wānanga runs over three weekends at the start, middle and end of the nine-week residential
phase. The facilitators use a strength-based approach to engage the young people in discussions of
how they are living, their ideas about masculinity, their ideas of spirituality and identity, as well as
specific elements of Māori culture such as Te Reo, haka and waiata. The third wānanga is held on a
marae, which removes the young people from an urban setting and provides a more appropriate
environment to reflect on their learning from the two previous wānanga and to consider what this
means for them in the context of what they are trying to achieve in the MAC programme. Where
possible, the wānanga tries to coordinate their messages with other aspects of the programme,
particularly the criminogenic component. However, it was noted that this can sometimes be difficult if
programme component structures or facilitators change.
The wānanga helps the young people, particularly those who identify as Māori, to consider what their
cultural identity means to them, and how it can protect them from future risk.
We use things like the waka, and the waka is about this journey, and if we are talking about
your journey…and you are on board this waka and you want it to go forward into the future
positively and in a good way and help you achieve good things, then you may want to stop and
consider what’s sitting on your waka right now. That will be things like you are fighting a lot and
your crime – where does that fit? How does being drunk and stoned on your waka look for
getting forward? If the judge, CYF, the Courts are on board right now, what do you need to do
to get them off? Some of the young men will feel like they have no power over their
circumstances at times, but part of our role is to uplift them so they are empowered that they
do have some choices – hard ones – but they do have choices. (Residential staff member)
The wānanga also helps to make the young people more aware of what is available to them locally
when they return to their communities, and provides local contacts that can be incorporated into the
plan for transition back into the community. While the wānanga is the main component of the MAC
programme to address issues of cultural pride and cultural identity, the school has also identified the
interest many young people take in their cultural identity.
Māori is a big thing for young people as well – they love it. When we’ve asked them if there is
something they want to research in NZ history, many said they want to research Iwi, te reo,
whakapapa. (School staff member)
Behaviour Management System (BMS)
The BMS is a ‘points and levels’ system to help shape desired behaviour in young people. It helps the
young person to understand the negative consequences of reliance on inappropriate behaviours, while
staff focus on teaching the behaviours that should be used. Levels of achievement are used to
recognise the young person’s progress in learning and maintaining the desired behaviours. Young
people demonstrating positive pro-social behaviour earn rewards points that entitle them to a range of
privileges. Increased levels of social responsibility and self-confidence demonstrated through positive
behaviours increase the privileges for which they are eligible.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
75
Annex 3: CYF assessments for youth
Assessment involves the gathering and analysis of information to support practitioners to understand a
young person’s situation and make appropriate recommendations for intervention options at key
decision-making points. Below is a brief discussion of some of the assessment tools available to CYF
social workers at the time of the evaluation.
TRAX is a social work assessment tool developed to aid CYF practitioners in their work with children
and young people aged 12 years and above. Primarily, it supports them to identify, analyse and
understand the strengths, risks and needs of the higher-risk youth they are working with. A TRAX
assessment is completed by a YJ social worker in the following instances:

when a child aged 12 or 13 years old or a young person aged 14 to 17 years old has offended and
the Youth Court has directed them to CYF for a youth justice Family Group Conference (FGC)

when a child or young person has offended and has been referred by NZ Police to CYF for an
intention-to-charge FGC

whenever the pre-FGC case consultation determines it is necessary.
This assessment will be completed prior to the FGC, and the findings discussed with the child or
young person and their family and used to inform the FGC. The YJ social worker will attend the
conference as an information giver.
Social workers also have screening tools available for use, including:

Kessler and Suicide Screens – to screen for psychological distress and suicide

Substances and Choices Scale – to screen for substance abuse.
If the assessments or screens above highlight issues of concern, young people can be referred
externally for further assessments relating to health, education, psychiatric or psychological issues, or
alcohol and drug issues.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
76
Annex 4: Youth reoffending
Knowledge & Insights in MSD examines patterns of offending for children and young people who
participate in youth justice interventions administered by CYF. When examining the reoffending
information below for the three types of supervision orders, it should be noted that the offender groups
serving each order differ to some extent, so the outcomes are not expected to be the same.
The figures below present offending patterns for the young people sentenced in the first year under
the Fresh Start reforms (1 October 2010 – 30 September 2011). Offending is compared for the 12
months before commencing each order with the 12 months after completing the order.
Stand-alone Supervision
Of the 223 young people sentenced to stand-alone Supervision orders:28

78 per cent had reoffended and 22 per cent had not reoffended within 12 months of completing
their orders
- 62 per cent had reoffended and 38 per cent had not reoffended within six months.

For those reoffending:
- the young people each committed nearly six fewer offences on average compared to the 12
months before the orders (5.5 compared to 11.0)
- the average seriousness of all the offences committed in the 12 months following the
Supervision orders (640) was almost a third of that in the 12 months before the orders (1,840).

when comparing the 12 months after the Supervision orders to the 12 months before:
- 76 per cent of young people offended less often (including 47 who did not reoffend), while 17
per cent offended more often and seven per cent offended at the same rate as before
- 83 per cent of the young people reduced the seriousness of their offending, while 16 per cent
committed more serious offences and one per cent had the same seriousness of offending.
Supervision with Activity
Of the 158 young people sentenced to SwA orders:

82 per cent had reoffended and 18 per cent had not reoffended within 12 months of completing
their orders
- 66 per cent had reoffended and 34 per cent had not reoffended within six months.

For those reoffending:
- the young people each committed nearly six fewer offences on average compared to the 12
months before the orders (6.1 compared to 11.9)
- the average seriousness of all the offences committed (791) was less than a third of that in the
12 months before the orders (2,129).

28
when comparing the 12 months after the SwA orders to the 12 months before:
Excludes supervision orders directly following SwR and SwA orders.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
77
- 77 per cent of the young people offended less often (including 27 who did not reoffend), while
18 per cent offended more often and four per cent offended at the same rate as before
- 84 per cent of the young people reduced the seriousness of their offending, while 15 per cent
committed more serious offences and one per cent had the same seriousness of offending.
Supervision with Residence
Of the 178 young people sentenced to SwR orders:

87 per cent had reoffended and 13 per cent had not reoffended within 12 months of being released
from residence
- 73 per cent had reoffended and 27 per cent had not reoffended within six months.

For those reoffending:
- the young people each committed six fewer offences on average compared to the 12 months
before the orders (8.5 compared to 14.5)
- the average seriousness29 of all the offences committed (1,165) was less than half of that in the
12 months before the orders (2,736).

when comparing the 12 months after the SwR orders to the 12 months before:
- 74 per cent of young people offended less often (including 22 who did not reoffend), while 22
per cent offended more often and four per cent offended at the same rate as before
- 79 per cent of the young people reduced the seriousness of their offending, while 20 per cent
committed more serious offences and one per cent had the same seriousness of offending.
29
The seriousness of offences is calculated using the Justice Sector Seriousness Scale 2012. This scale uses court sentencing data to
calculate a seriousness score for each offence based on the average severity of sentences imposed by the courts. Offences which
usually result in long custodial sentences being imposed have very high seriousness scores, while offences that result only in fines being
imposed have relatively small seriousness scores.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
78
Annex 5: MAC reoffending update
The latest monitoring figures show that as of August 2013, 42 MAC participants had graduated from
the MAC programme and been back in the community for at least 12 months. Of this group:

seventeen per cent (7) had not reoffended at all

thirty-one per cent (13) had received a custodial sentence of Supervision with Residence
(SwR) or prison.
Reoffending has reduced
Comparing the 12 months after the MACs to the 12 months before for these 42 young people:

eighty-three per cent (35) reduced the frequency of their offending

seventy-six per cent (32) reduced the seriousness of their offending.
The total number of crimes committed by the 42 MAC participants halved from 660 offences in the 12
months before the MACs to 325 offences in the 12 months after exiting the residence (a reduction of
335 or 51 per cent if they had continued to offend at the same rate):

eighty per cent (259) were committed by half (17) of the 35 MAC graduates who reoffended.
The other 18 reoffenders committed a total of 66 offences between them.

the total number of robbery-related offences committed by the 42 MAC participants reduced by
64 per cent, while the number of offences involving acts intended to cause injury dropped by
25 per cent.

seven MAC participants did not reoffend within 12 months, while a further three committed one
offence, and five others committed two offences.

of the eight young people who committed one or two offences in the 12 months after the MAC,
six committed minor offences with no direct physical harm to any member of the public.
Examples of such offences were breach of a local liquor-ban, a learner driver being
unaccompanied and a graffiti offence.
MAC programme reoffending rates are similar to or slightly better than reoffending rates for
non-MAC participants sentenced to a custodial order (SwR)
For 172 young males sentenced to SwR orders (but who did not attend the MAC), in the 12 months
after release:

eleven per cent (19) did not reoffend

thirty per cent (51) received a custodial sentence.
Comparing the 12 months after the SwR orders to the 12 months before:

seventy-two per cent (123) reduced the frequency of their offending

seventy-seven per cent (133) reduced the seriousness of their offending.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
79
Analysis shows that the average risk of reoffending for MAC participants is notably higher than for
other male offenders sentenced to a SwR order and who did not participate in a MAC. Given the
higher average risk of MAC participants, the fact that their recidivism rates are similar to or slightly
better than reoffending rates for non-MAC participants sentenced to SwR, may indicate that the MAC
programme is making a positive difference.
At the moment we can state that the MAC programme is producing some promising results in terms of
reduced recidivism. However, the small numbers who have completed the programme so far mean
that it’s too early to say that these results are statistically significant. The impact of the MAC
programme on recidivism results will be formally tested through a robust statistical analysis by the end
of 2014.
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
80
Evaluation Report for the Military-style Activity Camp (MAC) Programme
81